Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bilston Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Bill,

Mid-Wessex Water Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY FORCES, LIBYA (SUPPLIES).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare what information he has as to supplies reaching the Axis forces operating in Libya from Vichy-controlled Africa; and what steps he proposes taking to prevent such traffic?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dalton): There have undoubtedly been deliveries from French North Africa to the enemy in Libya of cars, lorries, wheat, wine and olive-oil. Gasoline and aviation spirit have also been reaching the enemy through Tunisia, though I am not yet in a position to say whether these were consigned from French North Africa or from Metropolitan France. His Majesty's Government take the most serious view of this assistance to the enemy by the Vichy authorities in North Africa, and are in urgent consultation with the Government of the United States. As hon. Members will have seen in the Press, the United States Government have already made inquiries in Vichy on this matter.

Sir Irving Albery: Does His Majesty's Government feel assured that no more serious step has been taken?

Mr. Dalton: We have made careful inquiries, and while the articles and quantities I have indicated have been sent, so far there is no evidence of any other kind.

Captain McEwen: Have the United States indicated that any reply has yet been received from Vichy?

Mr. Dalton: We are in very close touch with the United States Government, and in fact I am expecting a communication from them some time to-day.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister's intention to use the same vicious attitude towards Vichy France as he was in the habit of using towards Soviet Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (FOOD SUPPLIES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether the Greek Government has expressed satisfaction with the action of His Majesty's Government respecting food supplies for the Greek people; what representations he has received from other Governments respecting the supply of foodstuffs and other human necessities; and whether he has any further information respecting the food situation in the German-occupied areas of Europe?

Mr. Dalton: The Greek Government naturally welcomed the action of His Majesty's Government in arranging for a shipment of wheat to Greece, though neither they nor we suppose that this action in itself can be a final remedy for the situation created in Greece by systematic pillage. Both I and the officers of my Ministry are in constant touch with the Governments of other countries respecting the supply of foodstuffs and other necessities in German-occupied Europe, but my hon. Friend will hardly expect me to reveal the nature of the communications that have passed between us. As regards the third part of the Question, the general aim of German policy in occupied Europe has been to reduce the population to a bare subsistence ration, substantially less than that available for the German people themselves. Exportable surpluses are removed to Germany, though in certain industrial areas which are naturally deficient in food production and contain factories which are harnessed to the German war machine, some foodstuffs have been imported. It is therefore broadly true to say that the urban population throughout the occupied territorities are living at a level which is below,


and in some areas substantially below, peace-time standards. But much worse conditions prevail in Greece, in some parts of Poland, and in German-occupied Russia, where it becomes clearer every day that famine is an instrument of German policy.

Mr. Sorensen: With respect to Greece, is the Minister in constant touch with the Greek Government, with a view to the people being fed?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I am frequently in contact, through my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, with the Greek Government.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware of the feeling among the public that, by reason of its excessive sufferings over those of other occupied countries, and for other reasons, Greece stands in a class by itself, and that the public are anxious to be assured that the very utmost possible, even to the taking of risks, should be done, to feed the Greek people?

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Lady knows that it is because His Majesty's Government regard Greece as, in some respects, exceptional, that we have made exceptional provision already, and that exceptional concessions have been made in opening the blockade in respect of shipping, as I announced recently.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Minister aware that almost every local newspaper is, at the moment, carrying letters from people who were former members of the Peace Pledge Union, and others who have been unfriendly to the national war effort, and is it not doing harm to the nation to keep on preaching such nonsense in local papers?

Mr. Dalton: I myself pay no heed at all to anything emanating from the Peace Pledge Union.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the Minister pay heed to Members of Parliament?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden (for Mr. Hughes): asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he has any reliable information as to the manner in which the Germans and Italians have carried out their legal and moral responsibility to feed the Greeks?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): I have some reason to believe that in the autumn of last year the

Germans sent to Greece some sugar of Czecho-Slovak origin, and a small amount of cereals taken from Yugoslavia. Otherwise I have been unable to obtain the slightest confirmation of German statements that they have sent large supplies to the Greek people. The Italians have on at least three occasions sent consignments of foodstuffs, but my information is that two of these were seized by the Germans on arrival. By contrast the record of the enemy in Greece, and more particularly of the Germans, has been one of pillage and extortion. The German invading army supported itself wholly by requisitions, which continued certainly until November. In addition, the Germans brought with them printing-presses, with which they printed special notes which were issued freely to their soldiers; the rate of exchange against the drachma was fixed; shopkeepers were obliged to accept the notes and to keep their shops open; the soldiers bought everything in sight, and what they did not consume they sent home in parcels to Germany. The occupying authorities also organised on a large scale the export of foodstuffs to Germany, and the success of their efforts can be judged from the fact that olive oil, of which Greece has normally a large export surplus, virtually disappeared from the home market in the summer. I have also received reports showing that foodstuffs have been sent from Greece to the Axis armies in Libya, and that in some cases, Greek foodstuffs seized in excess of local military needs, were thrown into the sea rather than that they should fall into the hands of the Greek people.

Mr. Walkden: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange to have the statement he has made circulated to every one of the provincial newspapers for the purpose of answering some of the mischievous letters which are now appearing in the newspapers from inspired sources?

Mr. Foot: I hope this statement will receive the widest publicity to show where responsibility lies for the state of affairs in Greece.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

HOME GUARD.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any steps are taken to prevent mental deficients and other categories exempt from the Armed


Forces from joining and retaining their connection with the Home Guard?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): Volunteers for the Home Guard are registered at the local police station in the first instance, and, if they are considered suitable for enrolment, they are interviewed by the unit commander. Home Guards can, of course, be of a lower medical standard than regular soldiers, and I think that commanding officers can be relied upon to accept only such men as are fit to perform Home Guard duties.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that no method is in existence up to the present for finding out whether certain persons are mentally deficient or not; and is he aware that practically all the mentally deficients are properly registered, and that a scheme should be evolved whereby officers of the Home Guard could be put in touch with those registers?

Sir E. Grigg: All available information is obtained.

MEDICAL BOARDS.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the number of members of the Army who have been discharged on medical grounds, in comparison with the number passed fit for service by the medical boards; and whether he is satisfied that those boards are functioning properly?

Sir E. Grigg: In the majority of cases where men have been discharged from the Army on medical grounds within a short time of enlistment it has been found that the effect of a disability noted and recorded by the medical board has been more severe under Service conditions than was expected. There are other men who, with the same or an even greater disability, stand up perfectly well to Service conditions and may subsequently be raised to a higher grade. I am not aware of any evidence to show that these boards are not, in general, functioning properly.

Mr. Davies: Has the Minister compared the figures of discharges from the Army on medical grounds in this war with those of the last war, and is it not possible that the number is greater on this occasion?

Sir E. Grigg: So far as I know, that comparison has not been made.

MALAYA (SCORCHED EARTH POLICY).

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to give a detailed account of the application of the scorched earth policy in Malaya and, in particular, whether the Seremban tunnel and the Enggor bridge were destroyed; and whether references in the communiqués to the bombing of the marshalling yard at Gemas means that the Japanese are using the railway?

Sir E. Grigg: I am not yet in a position to give a detailed account of the application, of the scorched earth policy in Malaya. It is known, however, that both the East and West coast branches of the railway were blocked or destroyed at a number of points, and in particular that the Enggor bridge was demolished, the tunnel north of Kuala Lumpur blocked, and all large bridges blown up north of Seremban. No information is available as to the Seremban tunnel. There is no evidence that the Japanese are using the railway.

Sir Herbert Williams: Was the same policy applied to the boats along the coast of Malaya, or were they used by the Japanese to invade Singapore?

Sir E. Grigg: As many boats as could be found were destroyed, but there is an enormous quantity of boats in every creek.

Sir A. Knox: Will the Minister ascertain whether the Seremban tunnel really has been blown up?

Sir E. Grigg: Yes, Sir.

MILITARY OPERATIONS, LIBYA.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the original plans and dispositions prepared by Sir Alan Cunningham for the relief of Tobruk were carried out; and whether General Auchinleck expressed complete satisfaction with them?

Sir E. Grigg: It would not be in the public interest to discuss the authorship and execution of military plans when operations are still in progress in the theatre of war concerned.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that General Cunningham's anticipations of the probable course of the battle were far more accurate than those of the military spokesman in Cairo or of the Minister of Defence in London?

Sir E. Grigg: I can only repeat my previous answer.

MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS.

Mr. Bower: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the shortage of musical instruments, especially in isolated Auxiliary Territorial Service posts; and whether the welfare officers are granted funds enough to supply them?

Sir E. Grigg: The difficulty in satisfying all demands for musical instruments for dance bands and orchestras is due to shortage of supply and not to lack of funds. I am not aware however of any applications by Auxiliary Territorial Service units which have had to be refused.

MOTOR-LORRY ACCIDENT, ATHERTON.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a War Office motor lorry, driven by a War Department driver, was involved in an accident at Atherton, on 10th August, 1941, when it ran into a private motorcar, causing damage to it and injuring its driver; that a claim for damages has been sent to his Department, but this has been refused because it is alleged the War Department driver was using the vehicle for his own purposes at the time of the accident; that this action is causing concern as the public feel they are entitled to protection in cases of this kind; and will he take steps to cover such claims?

Sir E. Grigg: The policy with regard to the grant of compensation in such cases as this is as stated in the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 22nd April, 1941, and to my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on 24th June, 1941. It is not a policy peculiar to my Department but is common to all public Departments. The circumstances of the present case have received careful consideration, but I regret they are not such as would permit the grant of compensation.

Mr. Tinker: I understand from the reply that the facts as stated in the Question are not disputed—that it was an Army lorry, driven by a gunner in the Army that caused the accident. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this will cause great consternation to the public,

that although a man is doing wrong they are not to get any compensation? This is a serious matter and must be examined further than has been the case up to the present.

Sir E. Grigg: The principle adopted by all Government Departments is that in circumstances under which, if the Government had been a private employer, it would have been legally liable for the torts of the driver, compensation is considered. This is not a case in which a private employer would have been considered liable.

Sir Irving Albery: Is it not a fact that military authorities are very differently placed as compared with private employers in preventing improper use of their vehicles by their servants?

Sir E. Grigg: Yes, Sir. Disciplinary action has been taken.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to give notice that as this matter is so important I shall raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment.

IRISH BRIGADE

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has yet been taken with regard to the formation of an Irish Brigade for service in the British Army, and, if so whether he will give the widest publicity to the fact that such a unit is in existence?

Sir E. Grigg: I regret that I am not in a position to make a statement on this subject at the present time.

Mr. Stokes: Is it a fact that of the first 11,000 recruits in Northern Ireland 8,000 came from the South, and would it not be a good thing to canalise that line of supply so that they can be together?

Professor Savory: What is the hon. Member's ground for the statement in his Supplementary Question?

CASUALTIES, LIBYA.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War what figure of the total casualties during the recent battle in Libya, amounting to 18,000 killed, wounded and captured, represented those killed?

Sir E. Grigg: 2,908 out of the 18,000 are known to have been killed.

EX-OFFICERS (CALLING-UP).

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an estimate of the number of officers, now liable to be called up under the National Service Acts, who were granted the distinction of retaining commissioned rank at the conclusion of the last war?

Sir E. Grigg: It is impossible to give even an approximate estimate of the number of ex-officers affected. It is known that up to May, 1920, 162,313 officers demobilised after the last war were allowed to retain rank; but there is no record of their subsequent careers. Many of them will by now have passed the age of liability for service, some will have died or become medically unfit and others may have joined the Territorial Army or other branches of His Majesty's Service.

Sir R. Blair: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain the status of those officers on the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve whose services were declined on medical grounds, but who are now liable to be called up under the National Service Acts; and, in particular, whether they will again be subject to medical examination?

Sir E. Grigg: A member of the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve whose services have to be declined on medical grounds has no claim to be exempted from the statutory medical examination under the National Service Act. The fact that he is not in a high enough medical grade for employment as an officer does not necessarily mean that he is unfit for national service in some other capacity.

TRANSFERS TO ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Mr. Bower: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many would-be transferees from the Army to the Royal Air Force, who were accepted by the latter and whose transfers have now been suspended by the Army Council, have spent months in trying to equip themselves for their new duties and have at the same time lost opportunities of promotion in the Army; and whether, in view of these facts, transfers from the Army to the Royal Air Force will be resumed at an early date?

Sir E. Grigg: The recent decision to suspend transfers to the Royal Air Force for air crew duties was taken in the interests

of the Service. I greatly regret the disappointment caused to those whose transfers have not been completed. There is no reason, however, why they should have lost promotion in the Army, and I am sure that the great majority recognise that such transfers are not suspended without very strong cause.

Mr. Bower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these men were told that as they were shortly to be transferred to the Royal Air Force for new duties, there was no point in giving them that preferment in the Army which they would otherwise have received; and would he consider the possibility of agreeing to the transfer of all those accepted by the Royal Air Force up to a certain date, say, up to the end of November, for example?

Sir E. Grigg: No, Sir. I am afraid permission cannot be given at the present time. I am informed that the soldiers concerned have not suffered in the way of promotion, but, if the hon. Member has any example to the contrary, I should be very glad to investigate it.

MISSING SOLDIERS (TRACING).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War what organisation now carries out the work of tracing missing British soldiers which, in the last war, was the duty of an inter-departmental committee under the Foreign Office; and to whom should relatives apply?

Sir E. Grigg: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh on 19th December, 1941, in which full details of the organisation for tracing missing British soldiers were given. As regards the second part of the Question, there is no need for relatives to apply for inquiries to be set on foot. When a soldier is reported missing, a notification to his next-of-kin is sent out with a leaflet explaining the steps which are taken to trace missing personnel.

Sir A. Knox: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that this organisation is functioning properly, as numbers of relatives have to wait for months and months without getting information? Would he also say what is the function of the Red Cross Society in this matter?

Sir E. Grigg: All that is set out in the answer to the previous Question. The


Red Cross, of course, carries a responsibility. I am quite satisfied that the organisation is doing all that can be done in this matter.

Sir A. Knox: Who is really responsible? Is it the Red Cross or a Department of the War Office?

Sir E. Grigg: The War Office.

Sir A. Knox: Why is the Red Cross meddling with it?

COURT-MARTIAL.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information in connection with the case against a lieutenant-colonel, two soldiers and a firm of Army contractors brought before a court-martial, on Saturday, 31st January, when allegations were made against the contractors and the two soldiers of bribes given and received and against the colonel for burning a number of the contractor's forms, and other charges of stealing War Department oil?

Sir E. Grigg: The lieutenant-colonel referred to was acquitted on three charges of stealing War Department oil and the finding of the court has not yet been promulgated on another charge of not having ensured that proper inquiry was made into allegations of overcharging by a contractor and of having improperly instructed an officer under his command to destroy documents which would have been material documents for the investigation of these allegations. This other officer was himself acquitted on four charges of stealing War Department petrol, and the finding has not yet been promulgated on two other charges against him of not having brought the allegations against the contractor to the lieutenant-colonel's notice and of having permitted clerks in his office improperly to alter and sign requisition forms for transport. Three other ranks were also tried by Field General Court-Martial on various connected charges. Two of them were non-commissioned officers and were convicted on a number of charges of forgery and conspiracy to defraud; they were both sentenced to be reduced to the ranks and one was sentenced to 18 months and the other to one year's imprisonment with hard labour. The third soldier was convicted on five charges of conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline,

and was sentenced to 84 days' detention.

Mr. Thorne: Does that not show there was a good deal of collusion between the colonel and the others?

Sir E. Grigg: I can make no further comment on a case in which the findings have not yet been promulgated.

PAY.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information as to how the pay of a private in the British Army compares with that of a man of the same rank in the Canadian and the Australian forces?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of Stag for War how the pay and rations of the British Army compare with those of the American soldiers as stationed in this country or Northern Ireland?

Sir E. Grigg: I cannot speak with authority on the rates of pay and allowances drawn by soldiers in the Dominion and American Forces, but I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing information that I have been able to obtain in regard to the pay of private soldiers.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is it not a fact that the minimum pay for a private in the infantry in the British Army is 2s. 6d., while the minimum pay for a similar rank in the armies of our Dominions is 5s.?

Sir E. Grigg: This is a very delicate and difficult question which I do not think it is at all desirable to discuss by Question and Answer in this House.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Would the hon. Gentleman answer this Question; is it not a fact that Dominion soldiers, when they come over here, get an increased allowance, while our soldiers, when they go abroad, do not?

Sir E. Grigg: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to study the statement which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The pay of a private in our own Forces depends on his length of service and proficiency, and if he is a tradesman, on his trade rating. The rate of a non-trades-


man private rises from 2s. 6d. a day on enlistment by the addition of increments and proficiency pay to a possible maximum of 4s. 3d. a day after three years' service. These figures do not take into account the effect of any announcement the Prime Minister may make.

I hesitate to speak about the pay of the Canadian and Australian Forces; but if my information is correct the non-tradesman private in the Canadian Army receives 1.30 dollars a day. An Australian receives about 4s. 9d. in English sterling, while in Australia; outside Australia, I understand, certain additions are payable in the form of exchange allowance and deferred pay which bring the daily pay up to the equivalent of 6s. 9d. a day, sterling.

The private soldier in all Armies, of course, receives a good deal apart from his pay in other ways, e.g. in our case food, lodging, free insurance, laundry, and amenities of various kinds, as well as allowances for family or dependants, special grants from the Ministry of Pensions in certain circumstances and non-effective benefits in the event of death or disablement.

To make a full comparison it would be necessary to take all these things into account with any corresponding provision that may be made for Dominion soldiers and the conditions which govern them. I cannot speak with knowledge of all these details but I understand, for example, that the Canadian private has to allot approximately half his pay as a condition of drawing an allowance for his family. I am also informed that a non-tradesman private in the United States Army draws 21 dollars a month on enlistment rising to 30 dollars after four months, these rates applying equally to single and married men. I am not aware what proportion of these emoluments the man may draw in sterling in this country' or Northern Ireland. The hon. and gallant Members will in consequence realise that comparisons of rates between one country and another are apt to mislead and also to breed dissatisfaction.

OVER-ISSUE PAY.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what instructions have been given to commanding officers and paymasters regarding the writing-off of over-issues of pay to soldiers, due to faulty administration?

Sir E. Grigg: Commanding officers are authorised to put forward a submission for write-off of the whole or any part of an over-issue of pay which has arisen owing to circumstances outside the soldier's control whenever they consider that hardship would be caused by recovery of any portion of the over-issue. As an experimental measure, instructions are in course of issue which will relieve commanding officers of part of this work and speed up the settlement of such cases by placing the responsibility for initiating and preparing the submission in suitable cases upon the Paymaster, without, however, disturbing the powers of commanding officers to make representations in such matters whenever they think fit. The new arrangements will, I hope, give a considerable measure of speedy relief in appropriate cases in which debts have accumulated in circumstances outside the soldier's control.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the procedure now followed merely one of reference to King's Regulations, and will the hon. Gentleman issue special instructions to commanding officers, and to the Forces in general, so that they may have an opportunity of making proper application to the right quarter? There are hundreds of cases at present of men who are drawing only a few shillings a week.

Sir Richard Acland: Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that commanding officers really know about the rights which he has just mentioned? I am quite certain, from experience, that an enormous number are quite unaware of their powers in this matter.

Sir E. Grigg: The purpose of the new instructions is to call attention to the matter, so that they shall be given such an opportunity. We are very anxious that the facts should be known to all officers. If hon. Members are convinced that they are not known, we will take further steps.

Mr. A. Bevan: Will the ordinary soldier have some way of being informed that these instructions are being sent to commanding officers, so that he can check up? Every hon. Member knows that at present great hardship is being caused.

Sir E. Grigg: Yes, I will do that.

CASES AWAITING COURTS-MARTIAL.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War the average length of time men are held on charges pending trial by courts-martial?

Sir E. Grigg: I regret that the information required is not readily available, and could not be obtained without a disproportionate amount of labour, but I can assure the hon. Member that this matter is under constant review and instructions have recently been issued with a view to reducing the period to a minimum.

Mr. Bellenger: As the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have the information, would it surprise him to learn that many soldiers are kept under arrest for weeks before they are brought before courts-martial? Does he realise that such a procedure would not be tolerated under civil administration?

Sir E. Grigg: The usual reason for delay is that the evidence is not collected in a proper manner in the first instance. We are issuing instructions to enable that cause to be eliminated.

Mr. Mathers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the simplest cases weeks pass before men are brought to trial by courts-martial if they elect so to be tried, and that during that time the men are suffering by being confined to barracks?

Sir E. Grigg: Yes, Sir. If the legal authorities are not satisfied with the way the evidence has been collected, it has to be collected again.

Mr. Sorensen: When a man is sentenced, is the long period of detention which he has undergone before the court-martial taken off the sentence?

Sir E. Grigg: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Pritt: Suppose he is acquitted?

CONTRACT TENDER FORMS.

Mrs. Hardie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in requesting five firms to tender for a small ventilating fan, for a hut he has been advised about, and costing less than £10, each firm received Army forms totalling 21 folio sheets and six smaller documents for completion and guidance; and will he take steps to stop this waste of paper and the time of firms on his lists?

Sir E. Grigg: I am informed that the documents used consisted only of the usual forms, such as tender forms, conditions of contract, and specifications. The firms are asked to fill in three of these forms; the rest contain information on conditions of contract and the details of what is required. The latter are all returnable, and are issued over and over again.

Mrs. Hardie: Is the Minister aware that this is only one of several complaints which Members have received about the wasteful methods adopted by his Department?

Sir E. Grigg: I do not think I can accept that. Only a minimum of forms have to be filled in. The rest are sent for information, and are used again and again.

Sir Herbert Williams: If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Army and Navy Stores for something, has he to fill in 21 pieces of paper?

COMMANDING OFFICER'S LECTURE.

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any action has been taken, or is contemplated, against the commanding officer, privately identified to him, who, while lecturing to his unit, offensively criticised the present Government of Australia?

Sir E. Grigg: A full report on this incident has been called for, and as soon as it is received I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now received a full report from the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East, on the way British prisoners were treated by the Italians at Bardia; what is the nature of such report; and what action has been taken in the matter?

Sir E. Grigg: A full report has not yet been received from the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East.

Sir W. Davison: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the Minister of State in Cairo described himself as horrified at the conditions? Is it not time that we knew something more, considering that we understand from the Press that these men


were left in the open at night, with only a bit of corrugated iron to protect them from the cold winds?

Sir E. Grigg: I am sure that all investigation is being carried out as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend will realise that a court of inquiry may have been found necessary.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information regarding the treatment by the Japanese of British and Canadian prisoners of war; who is the Protecting Power; and whether the International Red Cross is in touch with the Japanese Government?

Sir E. Grigg: British and Canadian prisoners of war captured at Hong Kong have been reported to be in a camp at Kowloon. No reliable information about their treatment has yet been received, nor is any information yet available as to prisoners of war captured in Malaya. The International Red Cross Committee have appointed a delegate in Tokyo, and have asked him to report on conditions as a matter of urgency. The Argentine Government is at present the Protecting Power in Japan, and the Swiss Government is the Protecting Power in occupied China.

Sir A. Knox: Has the hon. Member any information where these prisoners are to be sent? Will people be able to send parcels to them through the Red Cross organisation?

Sir E. Grigg: I have given all the information we have. We are attempting to obtain more information as a matter of urgency.

Sir W. Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under the Geneva Convention, the dietary for prisoners is the same as that for garrison troops in the country; and, as that consists in Japan of rice, which is quite unsuitable for our men, will some representations be made?

Sir E. Grigg: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

DEER FOREST (SHEEP GRAZING).

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many sheep have been put on to that part of the deer forest, the name of which has been communicated to him, which

was taken over by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland last summer; and what losses have occurred to date?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): 1,720 sheep were purchased for the forest referred to, 1,325 being put straight on to the forest and 395 sent to winter on a farm in the district. The known deaths to date are 39 on the forest and eight on the farm. The true figure of losses will not be known until after the clipping next July. The sheep, as a whole, have done very well, and the position is regarded as very satisfactory.

Major McCallum: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have reliable information from the locality which places the mortality at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 on the forest? Does he not think it would have been more reasonable to begin by stocking up in a small way and so finding what types of lambs are suitable for the land?

Mr. Johnston: I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "reliable information from the locality." All I can say is that the particulars supplied to me show that the known deaths are 39 on the forest, and eight on the farm.

Major McCallum: Will my right hon. Friend have further investigations made?

Mr. Johnston: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will send me any reliable data that he has.

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in cases where sheep fencing is erected on deer-forest ground requisitioned by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, the owner is expected to pay for this fencing when the period of the requisitioning comes to an end?

Mr. Johnston: The owner's liability under Section 23 (5) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, when possession of the land is given up, will be to pay a sum equal to so much of the value of the land as is attributable to anything done on the land by the Government for the purpose of enabling it to be properly farmed or of securing increased efficiency in its farming. Failing agreement, the question whether any payment has to be made under this provision, and if so, how much, falls to be determined by the Scottish Land Court.

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland who authorised the erection of sheep fencing on that part of the deer forest, the name of which has already been communicated to him, requisitioned by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland; what the cost has been to date; and whether it is considered that this fencing is necessary to increase potential yield from sheep stock in the area?

Mr. Johnston: I authorised the erection of fencing on the deer forest referred to. The cost is approximately £260. The fencing is being erected for the purpose of enclosing certain parks in the deer forest. These parks were fenced when previously the deer forest was used as a sheep grazing.

WAR DAMAGE REPAIRS, GLASGOW.

Mr. McKinley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how the completed costs of the war damage repairs to owner-occupied houses carried out by the Glasgow Corporation housing department compare with the estimates from private contractors whose offer he did not accept?

Mr. Johnston: Comparable figures are available for six owner-occupied houses, on which the Housing Department of Glasgow Corporation carried out repairs at a total cost of £927. The private contractors, to whom the Corporation proposed to pay actual cost plus 17½ per cent. on labour and 15 per cent. on materials estimated that the total cost would be £1,420. On the assumption that their estimate was approximately correct, the saving to the public on the repair of these six houses is nearly £500.

Mr. McKinley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make use of this—the largest building organisation in Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have to press the Corporation of Glasgow to make this use.

Mr. McKinlay: I do not agree.

LIME SUPPLIES.

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that lime suppliers cannot execute orders placed with them by Scottish farmers as long ago as August last; that the reason given for this by manufacturers is shortage

of labour; and what steps he proposes to take in order to make vital supplies of lime available to farmers in Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: I am aware that in some areas difficulty has been experienced by Scottish farmers in obtaining lime. The present deficiency in supplies is due to a number of causes among which labour and transport difficulties, A.R.P. considerations, and increased demand for industrial uses are the more important. I am endeavouring, with the co-operation of the Minister of War Transport and the Minister of Labour and National Service, to overcome these difficulties, and also to stimulate the production of lime by a scheme of grants for the erection of new limestone grinding and waste lime drying plant. A survey of the available lime resources of Scotland is being rapidly conducted by a Technical Committee recently set up by the Department of Agriculture, with a view to recommending suitable sources of development.

Mr. Snadden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the committee appointed by him with a view to mobilising fully our lime resources has made any proposal as to how this grave shortage in supplies can be met?

Mr. Johnston: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that steps are being taken.

HILL SHEEP SUBSIDY.

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in connection with the hill sheep subsidy payment, hill farmers vacating their holdings at Whit-Sunday or Martinmas, 1941, will receive no benefit although they have, in fact, suffered all the losses, whereas their successors who suffered no loss will be substantially in pocket; and what steps he proposes to take to remove this injustice?

Mr. Johnston: I am aware that the hill sheep subsidy is payable to the owner of the sheep at 4th December, 1941, just as last year's subsidy was payable to the owner at 4th December, 1940. Clearly it is necessary to be consistent in the date; otherwise two subsidies might become payable in the same 12 months. Under the arrangements hill sheep farmers who have continued in their industry, whether they have changed their farms or not, will receive a subsidy. With regard to the relatively small number who have left the


industry, I would say to my hon. Friend that the object of the subsidy is a good deal more than compensation for past losses. It is intended primarily to enable hill sheep farmers who are carrying on to do so in good heart and to make their important contribution to the essential business of food production.

Mr. Snadden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I could give him a case of an outgoing tenant whose losses amounted to several thousands of pounds, yet the subsidy goes to the proprietor; and has not the taxpayer a right to demand that this money should go to the person who has actually suffered the loss?

Mr. Johnston: Subject to the conditions stated in my answer, I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend will give me particulars.

INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be in a position to submit a report to the House on the proceedings at the conference held in Edinburgh, on 3rd February, when the setting up of a Scottish Industrial Council was unanimously approved by local authorities and other representative bodies, as a means of safeguarding Scotland's industrial position?

Mr. Johnston: The conference was attended by representatives of local authority associations, chambers of commerce, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Development Council and financial interests. Government Departments concerned with industrial production in Scotland were also represented. The meeting decided unanimously to constitute themselves forthwith as a provisional Standing Scottish Industrial Council. This body will advise the Secretary of State, and the Scottish Council of Ex-Secretaries, on questions relating to the location of industry in Scotland so as to assist in securing that the industrial position of Scotland is fully safeguarded. I hope I may have an opportunity of explaining more fully the purposes of the council in the course of Debates on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, or during discussion of the Scottish Estimates.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the fact that this Council is composed of the very same individuals who have led Scotland into the position in which it is at the moment?

Mr. Johnston: I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue that line. We are trying, whatever the past may have been, to safeguard the future.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does it not require new blood, and not the old school tie?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

FUEL-SAVING DEVICES.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether any examination has taken place into the usefulness of so-called fuel-savers offered to the public; and with what results?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I assume that the so-called "fuel savers" mentioned are the chemicals sold for spraying over coal or coke. Several of these preparations were carefully tested on coal fires a number of years ago, on behalf of the Fuel Research Board, and found to have no effect. A similar investigation, made more recently by the United States Bureau of Mines, showed that treatment with certain proprietary products made no difference on tests of commercial boilers.

Mr. Smith: Is not my hon. Friend aware that one of these products upon analysis proved to be nothing more than common salt, and are there no means of taking action in order to protect the public?

Mr. Grenfell: Unless these people can be proved to be committing fraud, I certainly think that I have no ground for taking action against them.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the returns show an increase in the number of certifiable industrial diseases among miners; if so, what are the causes of the increase and, in particular, whether there is an increase in the incidence of dermatitis among coalminers and the reasons for the increase?

Mr. Grenfell: The Workmen's Compensation statistics show for the coal mining industry a decrease in the cases of nystagmus, beat hand and affections of the wrist and tendon sheath, and an increase in the cases of silicosis, beat knee, beat elbow and dermatitis. I cannot within the limits of Question and answer analyse the complex causes of these


changes, but as regards dermatitis special inquiries are being made to find out why the certificates of disablement in respect of this disease, which 10 years previously were very few, reached a figure of 400 in 1940.

Mr. Griffiths: If the inquiries show that the increase in dermatitis is due to deficiency in diet will my hon. Friend take the necessary steps to deal with it?

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir, certainly.

FIFE MINERS (COAL SUPPLIES).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary for Mines what requests he has had to investigate complaints from Fife miners regarding the poor quality of coal supplied to them in their homes; and what action is to be taken to ensure a clean supply?

Mr. Grenfell: No such requests have reached me, but the subject is one suitable for local discussion by trade organisations, and I think susceptible of local settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINES (MEDICAL INSPECTION).

Mr. Messer: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the greatly increased demand for tin and the possibility of tin mines in this country being reopened, he is satisfied that the one medical inspector in the Mines Department now responsible for nearly 1,000,000 workers in mines and quarries is sufficient medical staff?

Mr. Grenfell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 3rd February to a Question by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Messer: Notwithstanding that answer, is my hon. Friend aware that silicosis is very much more prevalent among tin-miners than coalminers, and has he read the annual report for 1938 which shows that out of 1,500 workers 20 died of silicosis, and does not that call for some action?

Mr. Grenfell: It is well-known that silicosis is prevalent in Cornish tin mines and certain preventive precautions were laid down by regulation to protect the workers against the incidence of this disease. I do not think that the men in Cornwall are lacking attention for want of medical knowledge on the subject.

Mr. Messer: Is the Secretary for Mines satisfied that he has a sufficient inspectorate?

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir, I think it is sufficient for this purpose, but my hon. Friend and the House know that a very extensive investigation has been going on under the Research Board. The Lord President of the Council is in charge of it, and I am expecting a very comprehensive report from that body within a few weeks.

WOMEN MOTOR DRIVERS.

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Labour to what ex tent women chauffeurs have replaced men in Government Departments; and how many men so replaced have been directed into munitions production and the driving of heavier vehicles, respectively?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): This information is not immediately available, but I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

USED MOTOR VEHICLES (DISPOSAL).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that some Departments of State are, and have been, disposing of used motor vehicles to dealers who subsequently sell these motor-cars to other Departments of State at an enhanced price; and what steps he proposes to take to end this waste of public money?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am not aware of any instances of the practice to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am making inquiries and will communicate with him as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CLOTHES COUPONS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now give any information in connection with the fraud by which 158,500 coupons were obtained at post offices in six towns; whether he has considered the report about the case at the Leeds Police Court by Detective-Sergeant Tempest; and what action did he take in the matter?

The President of the Board of Trade (Colonel Llewellin): I regret that I am not yet in a position to add to the answer


given by my predecessor on 27th January to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information in connection with the 41,000 forged coupons charges which came before the Thames police court on Friday, 30th January, when Jack Mancher, Harry Greenberg and others were charged with forgery?

Colonel Llewellin: The prosecution to which my hon. Friend refers is being conducted by the police. The accused have been remanded, and the case is therefore still sub judice.

SMALL TRADERS.

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether consistent with the national interest, he will do everything he can to sustain in business as many as possible of the small shopkeepers who are efficient, in view of the valuable services they render?

Colonel Llewellin: The Retail Trade Committee are about to consult trade organisations on the best way of dealing with the problems inevitably confronting all classes of shopkeepers at this time. I realise to the full the good service which efficient shopkeepers perform for the community, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, consistent with maintaining the full war effort, I will do what I can to help them.

WAR RISKS INSURANCE.

Sir Richard Acland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the amount of expenses paid in respect of each policy issued and the number of policies dealt with under each expense scale by the insurance companies and Lloyds from September, 1939, to 31st December 1941 under the War Risks Insurance Act, from May, 1941, to 31st December, 1941, under the War Damage Act (Private Chattels) and from April, 1941, to 31st December, 1941, under the War Damage Act (Business Scheme), respectively?

Colonel Llewellin: As the answer is necessarily long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The number of policies issued under the three schemes for the periods mentioned

are 4,160,800, 934,900 and 1,533,600 respectively. The payments to the Insurance Companies and Lloyds as the agents of the Board of Trade are so calculated as to cover the cost of administration without profit to themselves. On this basis for work up to 2nd March, 1940, under the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, the agents received 17s. 6d. for each policy issued for a fixed sum, or 35s. for an adjustable policy. In addition, they received additional amounts varying from 2s. 6d. to 50s. where payments had to be made to intermediaries. For the succeeding period to the passing of the War Damage Act, 1941, during which the work had become simplified, the rate was reduced to 11s. 6d. per policy, which included any allowances to intermediaries. The over-all rate of payment for the combined work under the three schemes has not yet been agreed. Representative accounts of expenses submitted by the agents are now being examined, and meanwhile certain limited provisional payments have been made. It is anticipated that the over-all rate when fixed will show a substantial reduction on the last figure adopted for the War Risks Act work.

Sir R. Acland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the amount of premiums paid by the Government and claims received by them up to 31st December, 1941, under the arrangement whereby stocks of commodities held by the Government are insured by them against fire risk with the insurance companies and Lloyds; and whether any commission, agents' allowances or expenses are paid under this scheme?

Colonel Llewellin: These insurances are effected by the Departments concerned direct with the insurers and no record of them is kept by the Board of Trade. It is not in the public interest to disclose the information asked for in the first part of the Question. In regard to the second part, no commission or agents' allowances or expenses are payable in addition to the premiums.

Sir R. Acland: I understand that it might not be in the interests of the insurance companies to disclose the figures, but will the Minister say in what way it would not be in the public interest to say how much the Government are paying?

Colonel Llewellin: I consulted both the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Food, which are the Departments most immediately concerned about this, and they said—and I agree—that it would be likely to disclose the amount of stocks held.

Sir R. Acland: Would the Minister have any objection to telling us, either now or later, the proportion between the claims and premiums?

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES.

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement on the pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces and their dependants?

Major Milner: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make the promised statement as to improvements in the pay and allowances of men in the Services?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Perhaps hon. Members would be good enough to await the statement which I propose to make on this subject at the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (WAR PRODUCTION).

Mr. Alfred Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether he has made arrangements for an interchange of production experts between this country and the United States of America in order to avail ourselves of the expert knowledge of the United States mass-production methods?

The Prime Minister: A number of British production experts have been for some time in the United States of America considering jointly with the Americans the methods of war production. The hon. Member's suggestion for utilising the experience of American production is being still further examined and this experience should be very helpful.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CASUALTIES (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether he has ascertained the decision of the Governments of the Dominions and of India respecting the publication of the number of casualties;

and whether there will be any periodic publication of these figures, together with our own?

The Prime Minister: The Government of India have now agreed to the publication of the figures in question, so far as they are concerned, but the replies of the Dominion Governments on the matter are not yet complete. I regret that, in the meanwhile, I am not in a position to reply to the second part of the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Are the casualties among Indian troops likely to be published in the near future?

The Prime Minister: I am awaiting a reply from the Dominions.

Mr. Lawson: Why feed the mouths of the enemy on matters of this kind?

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (25th REPORT).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the House to have an opportunity to debate the 25th Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure at an early date?

The Prime Minister: This Report was issued on the 11th November, 1941. An opportunity to discuss the questions covered by it was afforded by the Debates on production and man-power on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th December, 1941, and further opportunities will no doubt occur in similar Debates arranged through the usual channels. A Debate confined to the 25th Report and limited to the specific questions covered by it, would not, in my opinion, seem to be called for at the present time.

Mr. Edwards: Does the Prime Minister realise that with most of these reports a period of four months has elapsed before a Department has given any kind of reply to the Committee? Is it not desirable that a special day should be set apart for the House to consider the working of this Committee, which has been in operation now for two years? Should not there be a Secret Session and, if so does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that members of the Committee should speak plainly to this House, in which case there will be some stirring revelations?

The Prime Minister: Debates, whether secret or in public session, are arranged through the usual channels and in addition there are the Parliamentary opportunities of the year, which are well known to Members. As for plain speaking I hope it will not be confined to one side of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S AUXILIARY SERVICES (COMPLAINTS).

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the harm done to the Women's Auxiliary Services by the publicity given to complaints which may be unjustified, he will give an assurance that, if such complaints are sent to the appropriate Minister or to the director of the Service in question by Members of Parliament, they will be investigated and a report sent so that the Member can judge whether it is necessary to give publicity to the complaint?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that any such complaints sent to Ministers by Members of Parliament will certainly be investigated and the Member of Parliament concerned will be informed of the result. Complaints by serving members of the Women's Auxiliary Services should, however, be made through the usual Service channels. Complaints made in this manner are dealt with as quickly as possible in the same way as those submitted by officers and men in accordance with King's Regulations, and the importance of using the correct official channels was fully explained in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 10th December, 1940.

Miss Rathbone: As it is almost impossible to overtake slander and grave harm has already been done to these Auxiliary Services by charges which afterwards have been proved to be exaggerated; would it not be better if Members could have encouragement to make inquiries direct?

The Prime Minister: It is no doubt true that it is difficult to overtake slander, but the truth is very powerful, too, and also comes along at the same time, and I do not think any serious harm has been done up to the present to these Women's Services.

Mr. Silverman: Is the Prime Minister aware that in one well-known case when a Member of this House made such inquiry and complained to the Secretary of State for War he was given the reply that having addressed the inquiry to the head of the Service concerned and having accepted that answer, the Minister did not propose, to hold any further inquiry? Does that encourage Members of this House to direct their attention to complaints of this kind?

The Prime Minister: I cannot deal with that particular episode, which occurred at Question time, when I was probably not present, and without having the context and setting of it placed before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR PLANNING.

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will give an undertaking that, in the appointment of any Royal Commission or Departmental committees concerned with post-war planning, local authorities shall have adequate representation thereon?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I agree that any Departmental Committee considering post-war problems which affect the interests of local authorities should be fully apprised of the views of such authorities, either by direct representation or otherwise, and I should be prepared to recommend a similar course in the case of a Royal Commission on such problems.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX (ARMED FORCES).

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why instructions have been issued to the Board of Inland Revenue that, although the family allowances generally of serving men are free from assessment for Income Tax, the allowance for children is taxable?

Sir K. Wood: Under current practice the position to which my hon. Friend refers arises in the case of naval officers and of non-commissioned personnel of all those services but not in the case of Army and R.A.F. officers. These variations in taxation treatment reflect certain differences in the conditions under which the allowances are issued. In consequence, however, of a recent change in their condition of issue, naval officers' allowances


will, as from the 6th April next, enjoy the same exemption as officers' allowances in the other Services.
In existing circumstances I feel that the position of the children's allowances for non-commissioned ranks is anomalous and I have decided, as a war-time concession, that, as from the next Income Tax year beginning on 6th April next, these allowances shall be treated for taxation purposes in the same way as the officers' allowances. The effect will be that, as from next year, the children's allowances for all Service ranks will generally be free of Income Tax. I must emphasise that this concession is only for the duration of the war and the position of all Service allowances will have to be reviewed after the war.

Mr. Bellenger: Having found this anomaly and put it right, why should it be brought into force from April, 1942?

Sir K. Wood: It is the same date as for officers.

EXCESS PROFITS TAX.

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make some concession to farmers in respect of Excess Profits Tax, having regard to the fact that the basic years covered a period during which engineering, aircraft and munition industries generally had begun to make money, whereas farmers were still suffering from the pre-war slump?

Sir K. Wood: The statutory options as to standard periods for Excess Profits Tax purposes are the same whatever the nature of the trade or business carried on, and I am afraid I could not accept any suggestion that an exception should be made from the general rule. I would add that, as my hon. Friend no doubt appreciates, the Excess Profits Tax legislation contains provisions under which a working farmer can claim a minimum standard of £1,500.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend consider this anomaly, namely, that in the basic years before the war the whole of our industry had the advantage of a measure of protection. But it was not so with the farming industry and it does seem improper or at any rate inadequate that the two groups should have their taxation based on the same period of years, when the position was different?

Sir K. Wood: That is one consideration but there are others.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the provisions of the Excess Profits Tax embodied in the Finance Act, 1940, have adversely affected national output and created anomalies and hardships which have tended to encourage extravagance and restrict initiative, he will consider setting up a representative committee of a practical merchant banker, a nominee of the Investment Trust Association, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Institute of Incorporated Accountants and the Federation of British Industries, with the chairman of the London Chamber of Commerce, or someone in a like position, to investigate the situation and to make recommendations for the revision of the system?

Sir K. Wood: I am aware of the criticisms which are from time to time put forward against the Excess Profits Tax or some of its aspects, and of course, give consideration, and will continue to give consideration, to the representations which are made. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the last Finance Act embodied a number of important amendments. I regret that I do not see my way to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "DUKE OF YORK."

Captain Duncan: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is satisfied with the design, performance and speed of His Majesty's Ship "Duke of York," in view of the fact that she took nine days to cross the Atlantic?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Austin Hudson): The time occupied by His Majesty's Ship "Duke of York" on the voyage in question was determined entirely by operational considerations and the speed which the escorting destroyers could maintain in the heavy weather encountered.

Captain Duncan: While I am grateful for that reply, will my hon. and gallant Friend draw the attention of Ministers to the desirability of not giving information to the enemy about naval operations generally?

Captain Hudson: I am not aware where my hon. and gallant Friend got the information on which he based his Question.

Captain Duncan: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that Lord Beaver-brook made a broadcast giving this information to the world?

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement on constitutional changes in Jamaica?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir. The proposals are contained in a dispatch which my Noble Friend addressed to the Governor of Jamaica on 5th January, and copies of the dispatch are being placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask whether these constitutional changes can be regarded merely as an instalment towards full self-government in Jamaica, and further, whether in these changes any concessions have been made in the direction of responsible government in addition to representative government?

Mr. Macmillan: I would not attempt to summarise an important dispatch in a few sentences. Therefore, I thought it wiser to place it in the Library of the House.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the Minister appreciate the point that the important thing is responsible government in addition to representative government; and will he see that steps are taken in that direction?

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (DEVELOPMENT).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when a report is likely to be received from the Governor of the Gold Coast respecting constitutional development; and whether this and other Governors of West African Colonies are considering or will consider, in co-operation with native representatives, the future economic development of West Africa and the necessity of a progressive balanced economy that will ensure progress and stability and substantial

social improvement among the black population?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: These questions are receiving the Governor's attention. I am glad to have this opportunity of saying that the Governor is appointing a committee of two Europeans and six Africans to report on the reform of the administration of justice in the native tribunals. On this and on other aspects of the problem my Noble Friend expects to receive communications from the Governor in due course. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative; but it will be realised that economic progress and stability in West Africa are not to be achieved by local measures alone.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the committee to which the Minister referred a committee that is considering the constitutional development of the whole of our West African Colonies, and if so, when are we likely to have a report or an interim report?

Mr. Macmillan: I stated expressly in my reply that the committee is to report on the reform of the administration of justice in the native tribunals.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that my Question concerned constitutional reforms, and did not deal with that matter?

Mr. Macmillan: But this seems to us to be a very good example of the value of the association of Africans in working out reforms of a practical character at the present moment.

SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I have two statements to make to the House, one on Service Pay and Allowances, and the other on the new office of Minister of Production.
I take, first, the question of Service Pay and Allowances. As was promised before Christmas, His Majesty's Government have given careful consideration to the remuneration of the Armed Forces and have examined the various suggestions which at that time were put forward in debate in the House. We regard the improved War Service Grants Scheme, which was introduced as recently as last October, as an effective and flexible instrument for ensuring that the families of fighting men shall be guarded against


hardship. We have, nevertheless, decided as a result of our review to make certain improvements relating both to current conditions and to post-war needs. Details of the proposals are contained in a White Paper which will be available to-day, and which I ask hon. Members to study.
There are three proposals designed to meet the wish expressed in the House for immediate improvement in the position of those with family responsibilities. In the first place, the Government have accepted the suggestion for a reduction, at the expense of the Exchequer, of 3s. 6d. in the compulsory allotments from their own pay made by men claiming family or dependant's allowances, thus increasing the total family resources by 3s. 6d. per week. The cost to the public of this improvement will be £17,500,000 a year. The second improvement is an increase in all children's allowances of 1s. per week per child, and the third a similar increase in the allowances paid to certain classes of dependant. The annual cost to the public of these improvements in allowances will be £5,000,000 more.
We have sought also for the best way of meeting the criticism—with which I must say that I personally always felt much concerned and very much disturbed about—that Service men are at a disadvantage, by comparison with civilians, in regard to the provision which they are able to make for the financial needs which they will have to face after the war. To my mind, it would be a very anomalous and invidious situation if those who had worn uniform had no nest-egg and everybody else had one as a result of savings from higher pay or through the Income Tax credits. We have decided to institute a system of post-war credits under which a sum of 6d. per day, or approximately £9 a year, will be set aside for all other ranks and ratings; the sixpences will be accumulated on behalf of the men, and will form a nest-egg available for use after the war and after discharge from the Forces. It is the intention of the Government that the introduction of this credit shall not prejudice the question, when the time comes to consider it, of granting a war gratuity to the Forces on appropriate lines. The cost to the public of this bonus will be £32,500,000 a year.
We have thus sought to combine immediate improvement in those cases where

family responsibilities constitute a claim for the most sympathetic treatment possible, with a general provision for the difficult days which may face many of us when the war is over. The total cost, both current and deferred, of these improvements is £55,000,000 a year, and this figure will rise as the Forces expand further to over £60,000,000 a year. These are large figures, but I have no doubt that the burden which they represent will be patiently and cheerfuly borne.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Can the Prime Minister state from what date these improvements will take place?

The Prime Minister: There will be a White Paper, but, if my recollection serves me correctly, the nest-egg dates from the same date when Income-Tax deductions begin to run for wage-earners.

Major Milner: While these improvements will be widely welcomed, is the Prime Minister aware that they are still deficient in some respects, particularly in the case of allowances for children, which are wholly inadequate and cannot be justified? Will he look into that question in particular?

The Prime Minister: I think that I should first of all ask the House to consider the statements in the White Paper.

Major Milner: How can the Prime Minister justify a payment of a maximum of 8s. 6d. per week in respect of one child?

Sir Percy Harris: Will there be an early opportunity for the White Paper to be discussed by the House?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I certainly think so, although I cannot say when it will be convenient. The whole position of serving men may be considered as a whole; then I think it will be very proper to have a Debate, although I shall not myself be able to take charge of this matter.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of not paying this nest-egg and the gratuity in one lump sum, but distributing it [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: We cannot count our eggs before they are laid.

Mr. Bellenger: Do these improvements apply to the Auxiliary Services, as well as to the male members of the Forces?

Mrs. Rathbone: Does the Prime Minister's statement mean that nothing further is to be done about officers' pay and allowances?

The Prime Minister: Some concessions on that question have been made quite recently. In reply to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), I think that they will certainly apply to whole-time services, but consideration is being given to that aspect of the question.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is the Prime Minister aware, in spite of the increases, it will mean that the allowance for a second child will be only 6s. 6d. per week, and for a third and subsequent child only 5s. a week? Does he think that that is sufficient adequately to feed and clothe a child?

The Prime Minister: When you have taken into consideration all the circumstances and all the different forms of remuneration which the Services receive, I feel that these proposals constitute a very fair settlement to the questions which arise, although, no doubt, it is always possible for anyone to go one better, especially when one has no responsibility. Yet I trust that the House will give their unprejudiced consideration to the proposals, rather than directing attention to a particular point.

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: Will the Prime Minister instruct the Minister of Pensions to see how far consequential adjustments should take place so far as the families of ex-Service men are concerned, so that they may not be left wholly behind in this generous action?

The Prime Minister: That is quite a different subject and it is obviously not applicable to some of the aspects of the statement I have made. I think that it would be much better to discuss these matters in Debate.

Mr. Levy: While appreciating everything the Prime Minister has said, are we to understand that no reconsideration is to be given to the incidence of Income Tax levied on workmen, which is causing so much unrest throughout the country?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that that has much to do with this question.

MINISTER OF PRODUCTION (DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES).

The Prime Minister: Now I come to the question of the Office of the Minister of Production which has occupied a good deal of my thoughts following the recent Debate. I make no pardon for going a little into the past, because I am anxious to place my action in the recollections of the House. During the latter part of the last war I was at the head of the Ministry of Munitions, which comprised, not only what is now called the Ministry of Supply, but also the Ministry of Aircraft Production, which latter was in many ways an enclave of its own. The burden did not appear too great, and the work went forward without more than the usual volume of complaints and criticisms. The Ministry of Munitions did not cover the Admiralty, nor various outlying branches of production, including merchant shipbuilding which was then under the Ministry of Shipping.
Having seen this system in action at close quarters, I was, naturally, inclined to recommend it to Parliament before the war, and when I became Prime Minister I looked for an opportunity of restoring it. In October, 1940, the air bombardment being at its height, there was advantage in placing at the head of Home Security a Minister who had special knowledge of London, which up till then had sustained the brunt and continued to do so for some time afterwards. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), who was then Minister of Supply, became Home Secretary. This enabled me to offer Lord Beaverbrook, who was then Minister of Aircraft Production, the double office of Minister of Aircraft Production and Minister of Supply, which, of course, comprised four-fifths of the entire field of war production. Unfortunately, Lord Beaver-brook's health at that time was seriously affected, and he did not feel able, in spite of my insistence, to undertake any additional burdens. I therefore made The arrangements, which I explained to Parliament in January, 1941, by which the three Supply Departments of Ministry of Supply, Ministry of Aircraft Production, and the Controller's Department of the Admiralty remained separate and independent, but were grouped together for common purposes by the Production Executive, over which my right hon.


Friend the Minister of Labour presided. This was the first time that the Admiralty had come so fully into the common system, and it is a tribute to the manner in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has discharged his difficult duties, that they are now ready and willing, to take a further step towards unification.
I do not feel that this system has worked badly, and I do not accept the many complaints that have been made against it. The entry of the United States into the war, the far-reaching measures of the pooling of Anglo-American resources, and the appointment of Mr. Donald Nelson over the whole sphere of American war production, created an entirely new situation. Lord Beaverbrook had established very close and intimate connections with the chiefs of American Production. He enjoys the confidence and the good will of the President. In shaping the new organisation, it was natural that he should be the British representative in the various pooling arrangements which were made, and which I laid before Parliament in a White Paper a fortnight ago. It followed from this, again quite naturally, that he should be put into a position, broadly speaking, similar to that occupied by Mr. Donald Nelson, and that someone should be able to speak to the United States representing British war production as a whole. I found myself, therefore, drawn to the conclusion before I left America that there should be a Minister of Production and that Lord Beaver-brook should be that Minister. I was very much fortified on the general question by the undoubted wish of the House and of the Press that such an officer and such an office should be created, and I have accordingly taken all necessary steps to bring the policy into effect.
It should be pointed out on the one hand that we are not now creating a Ministry of Munitions of nominally one Department under one executive head over a large portion of war supplies. On the contrary, the Departments retain their separate identities under their respective chiefs. A War Cabinet Minister, Lord Beaverbrook, will exercise general supervision and guidance over them and will concert and co-ordinate their actions. Moreover, the Controllers Department of

the Admirality will come within the scope of the new office, except in so far as warship design and the fixing of naval programmes are concerned. In addition, certain productive or distributive functions exercised by the Board of Trade and by the Ministry of Works and Buildings are also brought within the scope of the Minister of Production. A White Paper will be available in the Vote Office later to-day which will set forth the scope and powers of the new office in more precise detail. I should like to point out, however, that this Paper is not to be read as if it were a Parliamentary Statute on which courts of law would pronounce after elaborate argument, but as a practical division of functions and a guide under which men of good will, having common objects in view, will work together in the public interest and for the maximum prosecution of the war effort. I will content myself by reading the four opening paragraphs of this White Paper, leaving the more technical and departmental aspects to the study of the House at their leisure:

"1. The Minister of Production is the War Cabinet Minister charged with prime responsibility for all the business of war production in accordance with the policy of the Minister of Defence and the War Cabinet. He will carry out all the duties hitherto exercised by the Production Executive excepting only those relating to man-power and labour.
2. These duties include the allocation of available resources of productive capacity and raw materials (including arrangements for their import), the settlement of priorities of production where necessary, and the supervision and guidance of the various Departments and Branches of Departments concerned.
3. Notwithstanding anything in this paper, the responsibilities to Parliament of the Ministers in charge of Departments concerned with production for the administration of their Departments remain unaltered, and any Ministerial Head of a Department has the right to appeal either to the Minister of Defence or to the War Cabinet in respect of the proper discharge of such responsibilities.
4. The Minister of Production will also be the Minister responsible for handling, on behalf of the War Cabinet, discussions on the Combined Bodies set up here and in the United States to deal with Munitions Assignments and Raw Materials as between the Allies."

I commend this scheme to the House. It is certainly capable of modification in practice, but I hope it will be given a fair trial by all concerned.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I take it the House will have an early opportunity of discussing this White Paper?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Could my right hon. Friend say why questions of man-power and labour are excluded from this proposal? If the Production Executive is to lapse, surely the co-ordination over the whole field of supply will be less complete than it was before, in the absence of this essential factor?

The Prime Minister: Of course, that is all provided for in the White Paper. I was only dealing with the general layout in these remarks. The right hon. Gentleman will see in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 that it states:
8. The Minister of Labour and National Service is the War Cabinet Minister who will in future, under the general authority of the War Cabinet, discharge the functions hitherto performed by the Production Executive in regard to man-power and labour. These functions include the allocation of man-power resources to the Armed Forces and Civil Defence, to war production, and to civil industry, as well as general labour questions in the field of production.
9. As part of his function of dealing with demands for and allocating man-power, the Minister of Labour and National Service has the duty of bringing to notice any direction in which he thinks that greater economy in the use of man-power could be effected; and for this purpose his officers will have such facilities as they require for obtaining information about the utilisation of labour.
10. All labour questions between the Production Departments and the Ministry of Labour will be settled between the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Production, or such officers as they may appoint. The three Supply Departments will retain their existing separate labour organisations.

Mr. Shinwell: How is it possible for the Minister of Labour to make himself responsible for all matters relating to production if he is to have no charge over labour supply, and are We to understand that the ordinary machinery for co-ordination is to be such occasional meetings as may take place at the War Cabinet between the Minister of Production and the Minister of Labour? Is there to be no machinery created in place of the now defunct Production Executive?

The Prime Minister: No, the functions are divided between the two Ministers. Of course they will work in the closest co-operation. The Minister of Labour will carry out the policy of the War Cabinet. He finds and supplies the labour and he follows it up and sees that it is not used uneconomically. That is exactly what he does at the present time. He does that in the same way as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under the direction of the

Cabinet, supplies money, follows it up, and sees that it is not used uneconomically. The position is not exactly the same, but I think one may compare the two. Although I know how eager the hon. Gentleman is to set his critical faculties to work, I can assure him that that powerful organ would operate with greater efficiency on the basis of the details of the general scheme rather than merely on the statement I have made, and so I trust that he will read the White Paper before seeing which particular hole he wishes to pick in the scheme.

Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. Gentleman has quite correctly stated my interest in the matter, because I myself advised no grandiose Minister but a production Council with a Minister responsible to the War Cabinet, and with the other Departments retaining their identity, may I ask him—

The Prime Minister: That is exactly what we have, and it is exactly what it was the general wish of the House should be done.

Mr. Shinwell: But does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the only part of the proposal that I managed to put before the House in the recent Debate, which he has ignored, or left aside, is the function of providing labour, which is so closely related, as undoubtedly it must be, to the question of production itself?

Mr. Boyce: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who will answer in the House for the new Minister?

The Prime Minister: It states in paragraph 16 of the White Paper:
The Minister of Supply will answer for the Minister of Production in the House of Commons over the whole range of his responsibilities.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Last week I asked the Prime Minister whether he would give special attention to this matter in the preparation of his statement. Will it not be very difficult for us to know what Questions should be put to the Minister of Supply and what to the Minister of Labour, as there will be some mutual obligations between the Minister of Production and the Minister of Labour in this matter? Further, in view of the fact that Lord Beaverbrook, when Minister of Supply, had to spend a great deal of


his time abroad—I do not complain about that, but it was so, he went both to America and Russia and was outside this country for a very considerable period—and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has attached such great importance to the appointment of Mr. Nelson as a reason for appointing a Minister of Production here, are we to have an assurance from the Prime Minister that the Minister of Production will spend all his time in this country? Otherwise, we shall just have a facade.

The Prime Minister: Certainly I cannot give such an assurance but the fact that the Minister of Supply under his general supervision will take his place in his absence in the discharge of Parliamentary business will, I think, make this not at all detrimental to the public interest. On the contrary our organisation has become Transatlantic in character. With regard to the difficulties that hon. Members may experience in deciding whether a Question should be put to the Minister of Supply in his capacity of Minister of Supply or as responsible for answering for the Minister of Production, that no doubt raises some nice questions of difficulty, but if those were the only difficulties that we had to encounter I should feel very much relieved.

Mr. Maxton: May the House take it that the two principal Ministers concerned are enthusiastically behind these proposals?

The Prime Minister: I hope that they and all other Ministers are enthusiastically behind their country's cause.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that his announcement produced no sign of approval from any part of the House?

The Prime Minister: I do my work to the best of my ability. If it wins approval am glad but if it does not, my conscience is clear.

Mr. Simmonds: In view of the fact that so few Members in a short Parliamentary day can speak on a matter of this vast importance, and also in view of the fact that we have not for a considerable time had a Debate on production alone, would the Prime Minister consider setting aside two days for a discussion of the matter?

The Prime Minister: I suggest, first of all, that the White Paper should be read and studied and that then, if there is a desire for a Debate, it should be conveyed to the Government through the usual channels, with which I have no doubt my hon. Friend can get himself into touch. When a Debate has been decided upon—if it is arranged—then we could see whether one or two or three days should be devoted to it.

Mr. Shinwell: No Vote of Confidence, though.

The Prime Minister: The vote will necessarily be upon the proposals of the Government—I do not want to rub any sore place—and they cannot be presented without the Government asking for support in regard to them. Anyhow, if two days are needed and two days can be found—each day knocks out some other day—the Government will have no objection.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will work for the Admiralty come under the jurisdiction of Lord Beaverbrook as Minister of Production or will it just continue as in the past that the Admiralty will have priority over everything else?

The Prime Minister: I do not admit that that has been the case, although the late Lord Fisher said the British Navy always travelled first class. I can assure my hon. Friend that the tendency in this paper will all be to mitigate any undue or improper priorities which have existed with regard to any particular department.

Mr. Bevan: We do not know that there will be a Debate.

The Prime Minister: Certainly, there will be a Debate if it is desired and is requested through the usual channels. [Interruption.] What else can I say?

Mr. Bevan: Will the Prime Minister take note of the desirability of having the Debate early in order to avoid a very large number of Motions on the Order Paper which is bound to be the case if the Debate is delayed?

The Prime Minister: The setting down of a large number of Motions might give the Government valuable guidance as to the force of the criticisms that they will have to meet.

ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1941).

Estimates presented,—of the further sum required to be voted for the Army for the year ending 31st March, 1942 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 38.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1942.

Estimates presented,—for the Army for the financial year 1942 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 39.]

PUBLICATION AND DEBATES REPORTS.

First Report from the Select Committee brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 43.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 43.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Lord Reith to attend to be examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee on Works appointed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure.—[Sir Arnold Gridley.]

SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL).

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Panel appointed to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order 111: Mr. Charles Williams, and had appointed in substitution Mr. Orr-Ewing.

SELECTION (SUGAR INDUSTRY BILL SELECT COMMITTEE).

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had nominated the following three Members to serve on the Select Committee on the Sugar Industry Bill: Sir Joseph Lamb, Mr. Pym, and Mr. Quibell.

Orders of the Day — SECURITIES (VALIDATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, unlike so many that we have to deal with, is perfectly simple in its character, and anyone who reads it can understand at once what it purports to do. It provides in Clause 1 (1) that the Treasury, or any person authorised by the Treasury, may issue a certificate declaring that the transfer of a security is, and always has been, valid notwithstanding the fact that it was effected contrary to the Defence Regulations. The second Sub-section provides that in the case of any class of securities the Treasury may make an Order declaring that such transfers are valid in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as it may specify. The third Sub-section provides that no such certificate or Order will affect the liability of any person to penalties under the Regulations, and the fourth provides that an Order made under this Clause may be varied or revoked but not so as to invalidate any transfer which has already been validated. In more simple language, what it does is to say that in cases where permission would have been granted if it had been asked for the Treasury may validate a particular transaction although permission was not asked for. I am sure the House will naturally give us those powers but they would like


to know why we want them and what is the background of the Bill. It is not anything very serious. There is a great body of Defence (Finance) Regulations and Section 3A of those Regulations deals with the transfer of securities.
When securities are bought and sold during the war there is a certain form to be signed, as well as the transfer forms, a declaration that the transaction is not to the benefit of a non-resident. The technical meaning of a non-resident is a person resident outside the sterling area. Both transferor and transferee have to sign the declaration and there is a space for a stamp and the signature of the stockbroker or bank to show that the matter is in order. If, however, it is impossible to satisfy the Treasury that there is no non-resident interest, that permission has to be sought, and, unless it has been sought and given, the transaction is not valid. In the normal run of cases there has been no difficulty. An enormous amount of transferring actually takes place in the course of months and years, and everybody is fully aware of these Regulations and what has to be done because the banks and stockbrokers and the other people concerned in such dealings were fully informed at the time in the Press. This provision came into effect under Regulation 3A on 13th May, 1940. Hon. Members will note the date of the next thing that happened. On 17th July a further definition was put into the Regulation defining securities as including life assurance or endowment policies because, between May and July, there had been the over-running of the Low Countries and France and it was necessary to make sure, as far as we could, that there would be no leakage by which moneys would be improperly transferred outside the sterling area. It was found a year later, on 30th May, 1941, that it was no longer necessary for life assurance or endowment policies to be within the definition of securities. Therefore they were dropped, and the whole period for which we are concerned in validating improper transactions is 17th July, 1940, to 30th May, 1941, with regard to life assurance and endowment policies.
The difficulty has arisen in this way. There was no particular reason, if two individuals were effecting the transfer of a life assurance policy, for it to come under notice at the time. It is not like

selling a security on the Stock Exchange or through a bank, when there would have to be a paper produced. This problem did not come to light until a later date in many cases. In other words, when a policy is presented on maturity or surrender it is the business of the company to take steps to see that the Regulation had been complied with. It was discovered that by inadvertence in many of these cases it had not been carried out. There is no particular reason why, provided the other conditions are satisfied, these transactions should not be validated. The Bill is intended to deal with that problem. There is the difficulty, unless we can validate those transactions for which there is no reason to suppose permission would not have been given at the time if it had been sought, that if there are any further transfers after this impropriety has come to light there is nothing in the law by which we can make them legitimate. The invalidity goes on for all time, although the next people along the line may have carried out the transaction in good faith and might even have applied for permission, having found out that it was necessary to get it.

Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many transactions of this kind there are and the total amount involved?

Captain Crookshank: We cannot tell because they may not have come to light, but it is not a very large problem. Where it has occurred, however, it is only right, always granted that they were cases where permission would have been given, that they should be validated. Where through inadvertence permission was not asked for, it is only reasonable that permission should be given subject to the safeguards of the Bill.
The second class of case is a similar class which has also come to light, and again the same thing applies. I am dealing only with cases where permission would have been granted if it had been asked for. This class of case is where transfer of or the creation of an interest in a security has taken place under a settlement. There you may have the interest created by a trust deed without the actual transfer of any security taking place. In that case the transferors and transferees would not have appreciated that they ought to have had permission.


The Bill is nothing very exciting and is not likely to arouse any passions anywhere. I am sure the House will see that it is reasonable in cases of this kind, where inadvertently permission was not asked when it would no doubt have been given if asked for that we should make these transactions valid and make it possible for subsequent transactions in these securities or insurance policies to have a valid title, which, unless some amendment of the law is made, they could never acquire in present circumstances.

Sir Irving Albery: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend give a little more explanation of the need for and meaning of Sub-section (4)?

Captain Crookshank: I should have thought that it was clear as it is. It merely provides that an order made under Sub-section (2) may be varied or revoked by an order so long as it does not invalidate anything which has been validated by that order. If my hon. Friend has any difficulty I will try and make it clearer later, but it seems to me a necessary provision. Sub-section (2) lays down the conditions and circumstances which may be necessary in making the order.

Mr. Garro Jones: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not disclosed any important constitutional aspect of this matter, but he will perhaps forgive me for saying that his skill as a Parliamentarian is such that it does not always convey such a reassurance. I believe I am right in saying that no securities are affected by this Measure other than life and endowment assurance policies and certain kinds of settlements. This is a Bill to make valid retrospectively certain classes of transactions which were not valid at the time when they were effected. This touches the criminal law, as I understand. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, we consider it to be an undesirable thing to make an offence that which when it was done was not an offence. In this Bill we are doing the opposite. We are validating from the civil aspect transactions which, when they were done, were invalid, but, according to Sub-section (3), that validation does not affect the criminal liability of the party who carries out the transaction. Why is it necessary to maintain the liability to prosecution while in all other

respects the transaction is validated? I do not suggest that there is any serious difficulty in the Bill there, but it is a point which might well be explained. Another point about which I would like to ask has to do with the wording of the two main operative Clauses. Why is it necessary in Sub-section (1) for the Treasury or person authorised by the Treasury to operate by the issue of a certificate, whereas in Sub-section (2) the Treasury operates by making an order? It is not a big point, but it arouses my curiosity, and I shall be glad if the Financial Secretary will explain. Subject to these remarks. I do not think there are any important objections to the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: I think my hon. Friend was right when he paid a tribute to the Parliamentary skill of the right hon, and gallant Gentleman, as shown in this seemingly innocuous Measure. I was struck by two things. One was that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had no information to give to the House about the number of transactions affected by it or the amount of money involved. The other was that he did not give us a typical instance of the kind of transaction which he had in mind. He explained the general class of such cases, but he did not know whether they were very numerous. I cannot think that the House is being asked in these days to devote part of its valuable time to discussing a Measure which is only theoretically necessary. There must have been transactions brought to the notice of the Treasury, and the House would be glad of a little more information. Another point is that the Bill seems to affect almost entirely life assurances and endowments, and indeed to affect them principally in France and Belgium. It appears that transactions of that kind that were illegal at the time have taken place in those, places. It is not now proposed, as I understand the matter, to legalise all those transactions but to validate some of them—those to which the Treasury would have consented, if application for approval had been made at the proper time, in the proper way. I would like to know on what principle the Treasury distinguishes; what kind of illegal transactions would be validated under this Measure, and what kind of transactions the Treasury would not approve?
Unlike my hon. Friend, I am prepared to suggest one such transaction. I do not know whether it was legal or illegal at the time, but I suspect that it was not legal. We know that the Government have said since that they approved of it and at some time or other gave some consent to it. The House would be very concerned if it thought it was being asked to give the Government powers under the Bill to be used to further any more such transactions. The case I have in mind is that of Marshal Petain. It appears that Marshal Petain has had a policy of assurance with a British company, an endowment policy.

Captain Crookshank: I do not know whether it would help the hon. Gentleman for me to intervene, but I would like to say that, so far as I know, there was no question of transfer of policy there. The hon. Member is raising the question whether payment under a policy should be made. That has nothing to do with the Bill. It is a question of one person transferring the whole policy to another person and somebody else becoming the beneficiary. It is not the same case.

Mr. Silverman: It is not quite the same case, but obviously a transfer of securities was involved, although it was not a transfer of a policy.

Captain Crookshank: Security and money are not the same thing. No money was transferred. We are not talking about that, nor has it anything to do with the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will do his best to follow my argument. I am afraid I am not putting it very clearly but I think the point of it will appear. What happened in that case was that security was transferred, money was transferred, from London to Vichy. I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman calls it a security or not, but it must have been transferred in some form. I should have thought that the document by which the money was transferred was a security. No doubt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. The principle involved seems to be quite the same. The transfer of that money was, or would have been, illegal, but for Treasury consent. I am not alone in wondering why the Treasury thought that the transfer of money which was

against the Defence Regulations was one to which the Government consented, and on what principle they differentiated in this case and made that which would have been illegal without their consent legal because they gave their consent. I am concerned to know whether those principles are to be applied to cases under the Bill, when the Government will be called upon to decide whether an invalid transaction was such as could have been approved by the Treasury if application had been made at the right time, or was not such a transaction. I cannot help thinking that a great deal of public opinion looks at this matter in the same way. I am utterly and completely at a loss to know why the Treasury consented to the transfer of that money. No explanation has ever been offered.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that such an explanation would be in Order on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: I must ask for your guidance, Sir. If it turns out that this matter is not within the Rules of Order I shall be ready to leave it forthwith, but I believe it is within the Rules of Order.

Mr. Speaker: If the Bill in any way deals with the point, the explanation would be in Order, but it is not in Order to ask the Government why they consented to certain transactions in the past.

Mr. Silverman: I should like to submit the point to you, Sir, in any case. I understand that the Bill is intended to give power to the Government to validate certain illegal transactions. It does not validate all those transactions. It gives the Government power to discriminate. They will consider each transaction on its merits, all of them being illegal, and they will decide that these are such as may be approved and validated and those are such as may not be approved or validated. I am concerned to get from the Government some definition of the grounds on which they will so discriminate. The Government have always had a very similar discretion under these very Defence Regulations. It is illegal to transfer any moneys to certain places or persons, or moneys of certain kinds, but the Government have always had power to waive that Regulation and to discriminate, as they will have under the Bill in similar, although not the same, transactions. I am asking whether they propose


to discriminate by their powers under the Bill or not. They have done so in the case to which I am drawing attention. I suggest that the two transactions are not of the same kind, the relation between them is, nevertheless, sufficiently close to afford the House some guidance to what the Government had in mind in applying their discriminatory powers under the Bill. That is what I had in mind. If that is not in Order, I leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker: Had the hon. Member addressed his remarks to the question on the first occasion, in the same way as he has done now, he would have been quite in Order.

Mr. Silverman: I apologise for not so addressing them. That is what I had in mind. I hope I have made my point clear to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. If he can explain the principles upon which that transfer of money to Marshal Petain, which was, in itself, illegal, was thought nevertheless to be of such a kind as to require an exception to be made in his case, so as to make an illegal transfer of money legal, and if he can recommend those principles to the House, I should be prepared to give similar powers under this Bill. But I have heard no such explanation so far. The only explanation offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that this was the head of a Government with whom Canada maintained diplomatic relations. I wonder how far that principle would go? I do not propose to detain the House to make a schedule, but one could imagine a number of such circumstances. At this moment we have a great and critical military operation proceeding in North Africa which has been rendered nugatory by means of assistance rendered to the enemy by Marshal Petain's Government. Why is Marshal Petain considered to be entitled to rights to which our own British subjects, destitute in Southern France, are not entitled?
I should think that unless the Government can explain away its use of these powers of discrimination in the past the House ought to look very carefully at any new powers of discrimination of that kind which the Government asks. I would like to know whether in future the discrimination is to be applied on the same principles? This is a periodic payment that

is being made. The Government, I take it, can change their minds. Do they propose to change their minds? Do they propose to reconsider it in deference to the very strong feeling throughout this country, that this was a concession which, in princple, ought not to have been made? It is not that the amount of money involved was important or that any great damage was done to our financial structure by allowing it. That is not the point. The point is the habit of mind behind it that made it possible for the Treasury to discriminate in favour of an avowed enemy of this country, when the same powers were not exercised to enable our own citizens to maintain their own children in America. I think I have said enough to make my point clear. For my part, unless we can get some assurance from the Government that its powers to discriminate will be exercised on the strictest possible grounds and that they will not be used in the same way as they have been used in this instance, I certainly cannot support the Measure.

Sir Irving Albery: The necessity for bringing in this Bill illustrates the conditions under which we are operating at the present time. A great many rules and Regulations are brought in by the Government, laid upon the Table and are not subject to any real control or amendment by this House. That is a matter which, I think, ought to receive some consideration. I quite understand the necessity for bringing in the Regulations, and the manner in which they are brought in, but I do not see why some machinery should not be set up, at any rate for studying them, and with power at least to draw attention to any shortcomings which may be there. That is something which, in present circumstances, the ordinary machinery of this House is not able to do. As far as I can understand, this Bill is brought in because a Regulation curtailed certain transactions which have since been shown to be reasonable transactions. Therefore this Bill has been brought in to validate these transactions. I cannot help wondering whether we shall have, in due course, further Bills to put right matters which have been overlooked in the issuing of these Regulations which are not subject to any kind of amendment by this House of Commons. We have it this Bill some opportunity for considering this matter.
There is one other point to which I wish to draw attention. It concerns Sub-section (4) and it is perhaps a Committee point, but I think it would save the time of the House if I raised it now, as no doubt an adequate explanation can easily be given. I cannot quite understand either the meaning or the need for Sub-section (4). As I understand it Sub-section (3) is the main part of the Bill which gives the power to validate certain transactions which apparently were reasonable transactions but were forbidden by Defence Regulation. When we come to Sub-section (4) it says that "An Order"—I take that to mean an Order under Sub-section (3)—
may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order made thereunder.
Apparently the original wrong act, having been validated under Sub-section (3) can, as I understand it, be again revoked under Sub-section (4). That Sub-section even goes on to say:
but not so as to affect any act validated before the variation or revocation takes effect.
That seems to me the difficulty because there is no need to validate any act under Sub-section (3). I am very sorry that some of my hon. and learned Friends are not here to take up this point. I suppose it would be quite understandable to them but I am one of those who think it desirable that legislation which passes this House should be understood not only by those in the learned profession of the law but should be reasonably understandable by ordinary persons who, ultimately, will be controlled by the legislation which is passed. I may not have been able to explain my difficulty in understanding this, but I certainly cannot understand it. I trust that, before the Second Reading is given, my right hon. and learned Friend will have given us some more detailed explanation of the meaning of Subsection (4) and of the need for it.

Mr. Jewson: I hope that this Bill will be passed. It clears up trouble which has arisen in a great many cases. But it has not been made clear to me how the trouble which we are trying to clear up originally arose. I should like to know whether it arose from a mistake in drafting, and the inclusion of securities which ought not to have been included, or through the issue of an order in regard to them which ought not to have

been made at all. Will the Treasury now be involved in dealing with every individual case on its merits? One rather gets that impression from the statement that the Bill will be applied only to cases in which leave would have been granted had it been asked for. It seems to me that that would involve a great deal of work. Cannot the same procedure be taken as is taken to validate all marriages which have taken place in a building which has been subsequently discovered not to have been licensed?

Captain Crookshank: I can assure the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) that the Government, in introducing this Bill, have no ulterior motive. I was not trying to conceal anything from the House. I can honestly say that I never have tried to do so. If I did, I should not succeed while the hon. Member is here. There is no great difficulty about Sub-section (4). It is common form when we have a paragraph in a Bill dealing with an order. I was asked what is the difference between a certificate and an order. The first Sub-section says that the Treasury "may issue a certificate," and the second says that the Treasury "may make an order." A certificate is a document attached to a particular transaction. The second Sub-section says that the Treasury may make an order with respect to any class of security
declaring that in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order …
The order lays down the general terms and conditions which govern the procedure. That being so, it will be seen that it may be right to modify the order if there are other conditions or circumstances which one might want to cover later on.

Sir I. Albery: What about revoking?

Captain Crookshank: Suppose the order says that in order to get any transaction made valid you have to obtain a blue paper by a certain date, you may want later on to change that date or to change the colour of the paper from blue to red. The second order will then revoke the first. The order will not affect the validity which has been given to the transaction under the order first granted. I hope that that is clear.

Sir I. Albery: It is as clear as my limited intelligence will allow.

Captain Crookshank: The intelligence of my hon. Friend is not so limited as all that. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Jewson) asked how this difficulty arose. It was not through any error in drafting. When the Amendment of the definition of a security was made in July, 1940, there was no difficulty. The difficulty has arisen probably because it was not sufficiently appreciated that some of these transactions might occur without anybody being notified. People may have transferred without notifying anybody, because they did not know that this regulation affected them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but we say that when a mistake of this sort is made, through ignorance, the transaction should be made valid. Some thousands of cases have emerged up to now, but one cannot tell what the total will be. These transfers occurred during a particular period of time. Some may not emerge for a long while. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne raised the whole issue, which I do not think was relevant to this discussion, of the payment of certain moneys to somebody or other, which he said was contrary to the general Finance Regulations.

Mr. Silverman: Which would have been contrary to the Regulations but for the fact that the Treasury consented.

Captain Crookshank: That matter has nothing to do with this Bill, which deals merely with securities. The hon. Member is raising quite another matter, which may be a very profitable subject for discussion on another occasion, but about which I am not now prepared to make any statement further than that which was made at the time by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Silverman: I do not want to press the right hon. and gallant Gentleman unduly about a matter which is not really of first-class importance, though it raises a serious principle. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that that matter is not affected by this Bill. It is affected by the principles of this Bill, which give the Government the same kind of power to discriminate as to which transactions they will validate and which they will not. I suggest that I am entitled to ask on what principles this discrimination will be exercised, having regard to the instance on which I have made one or two comments. Having regard to the

feeling that has been produced in the country, we are entitled to ask whether it is those principles that will be applied.

Captain Crookshank: All I can say is that, if the hon. Member refers back to what was stated on that -particular case, I think he will find that it was made clear by my right hon. Friend that that was a wholly exceptional case. It is not really relevant to this Measure.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Speaker ruled that it was relevant.

Captain Crookshank: My recollection is not quite clear, but I think the matter was treated as an exceptional case. We are dealing with cases where the transfer has taken place between residents in this country, not where there is a non-resident on either side. There is not really any matter of principle involved as to how we are going to deal with them. The difficulty that the hon. Member has in mind arises in the case of a non-resident. So far as there was any discretion which could be used to deal with that case, which is a discretion covering the whole procedure, that discretion is not affected by this Bill.

Mr. Garro Jones: I think this matter is becoming more obscure. My right hon. and gallant Friend gave us some examples. He has a discretion in individuals, and a discretion in classes of cases—under Sub-section (1) in individual cases and under Sub-section (2) in respect of any class of cases. Surely we can have some enlightenment thrown upon the matter.

Captain Crookshank: I am sorry if I am not making it clear because I do try, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. In the normal run of cases where the purchase of securities is dealt with there is no question of discrimination by the Treasury and no principle involved.

Mr. Silverman: What kind of transactions do not meet with their approval?

Captain Crookshank: Probably the case where a non-resident interest has been revealed.

Mr. Silverman: I was dealing with a non-resident case, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman replied that this had nothing to do with non-resident cases. Now he says that it has. In those nonresident cases where the Government have


a discretion, will they exercise it in the same way as they did in the non-resident case?

Mr. Garro Jones: I understand the difficulty of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), but do the Treasury require to take into account purely personal considerations such as the views of "A" because he is considered to be loyal, or "B" because he is considered to be a disloyal person, or if he is someone with whom, for some reason, you wish to maintain specially favourable diplomatic relations? I do not suspect for a moment that there is anything here that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to disclose, but in order to pass the Bill on Second Reading we ought to know the principles upon which the Treasury are going to operate.

Captain Crookshank: If during this period there had been a transfer of a policy which had been brought to notice and which had a non-resident interest, this regulation would deal with it. That is the sort of case in which permission would not be granted. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) will keep bringing in that particular case. As has already been explained, it was a wholly exceptional case. I do not think the members of the general public who have dealings with us on these Regulations regard them as other than most rigid. I need only instance the numerous questions, some of which I believe the Member himself has asked, concerning the transfer of funds to Canada and the United States in respect of children out there.

Mr. Silverman: That is precisely the discrimination of which I am complaining.

Captain Crookshank: The general answer to the question is that all these cases are dealt with most rigidly. He has instanced the one case where wholly exceptional treatment was given for reasons that have been explained in this House. But generally speaking there is no intention whatever of dealing with cases in that sort of way. It is really only the harmless cases of transferor or transferee in this country, who unfortunately did not ask for permission at the time, whose cases will be validated if this Bill is passed. I really can assure him that the case that he instanced was so exceptional that he would have to wait a long time before he found anything at all

comparable. I hope that that explains what the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) had in mind.

Mr. Garro Jones: I feel compelled to say that, having regard to the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not really clarified the mind of all of us on this matter, he ought to be prepared to give a more detailed explanation on the Committee stage and also to answer the question which I put to him with regard to Sub-section (3) of this Measure.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman raised the question of whether it was a criminal offence, but here it is really not so much a case of offences because they did not ask for permission, but really that the transactions are ineffective. Where something has been done which is wrong and involves a penalty under the Regulations, that obviously would not be affected, and that is what we are dealing with here. That is why we say that, if there was liability to penalty, it is not affected by the Bill. I will try and make the matter clear later on, and I hope at the same time the hon. Gentleman will help me by not trying to cloud the issue.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — INDIA (FEDERAL COURT JUDGES) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the power of the Governor-General of India to make acting appointments of judges of the Federal Court, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of revenues of India of such sums as may become payable therefrom by reason of any of the provisions of that Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INDIA (FEDERAL COURT JUDGES) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of s.202 of the Government of India Act, 1935.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, after the word "count," to insert:


and the person so appointed shall, unless the Governor-General in his discretion thinks fit to revoke his appointment, be deemed to be a judge of the Federal Court until that case has been heard and determined by the Federal Court.
These words by implication involve the salary of the judge who is temporarily appointed, and therefore were not in the Bill as read in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an Amendment, as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

Orders of the Day — RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR TRADE PRACTICES [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the restoration after the war period of trade practices obtaining before that period, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour and National Service or the Ministry of Labour for Northern Ireland in carrying the said Act into operation, including the expenses of arbitration tribunals appointed under the said Act; and
(b) any such increase in the expenses of the Industrial Court constituted by Section one of the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, as is attributable to the passing of the first mentioned Act."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR TRADE PRACTICES BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Restoration of pre-war practices.)

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move in page 1, line 7, to leave out: "immediately before that period," and to insert
at the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight.
The reason for this Amendment is, I think, plain. It is designed to ensure that the spirit of the Bill, the restoration of pre-war practices, is not in any substantial measure negated by the letter of the

law so far as it refers to the actual deed, when a practice may be considered prewar. There is in the Bill as it stands, the phrase
any trade practice obtaining immediately before that period in any undertaking.
As a matter of fact many trade practices, particularly in the engineering and shipbuilding industries, were put into cold storage for the duration of the war some months before this country actually became a belligerent. I am not quite clear exactly what date should be chosen. For example, I note that early in the spring of 1939, after a series of stoppages, coppersmiths and plumbers waived their demarcation agreement so that work on a battleship could be proceeded with expeditiously. I might take a larger example which is easily verified. The Amalgamated Engineering Union embracing, perhaps, 200,000 men signed and delivered their agreement about dilution and methods of training on 28th August, 1939. Here, plainly, is fruitful ground for argument. Is 28th August "immediately before that period"?
I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in naming a date. Quite properly, he does not wish to include within the ambit of the Bill all those industrial practices which change with the normal development of industry—for instance, price fixing and piece rates. But I suggest most emphatically that in the fixing of the date we shall do well to err generously because we must consider the position of men who quickly, and without quibble, gave up hours, conditions and concessions which they had taken years to obtain. It will be much better in my opinion if, in deciding upon the date which will mark prewar practices, we include within the Act 10 men who have no title to its benefit rather than we should exclude 100 men who have title to its benefit because they behaved generously and spontaneously when the pre-war armament drive insisted on their giving up conditions they had won. I therefore suggest that the Amendment must substantially be accepted and incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Woodburn: In supporting the Amendment I would like to point out that while it may not be possible to say that this date in 1939 is the correct date I hope the Minister, in fixing the date, will make it so that it will include all the agreements which have been made. In


the case of the large unions it may be possible to discover clearly when the first written agreement was made but it may not be possible to do this in the case of smaller unions and organisations. Whatever date is decided upon I hope there will be no question of the sacrifices which have been made to facilitate the war effort.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I would ask the Minister to be exceedingly careful before he definitely confines himself to one particular date because, as he knows, there were many trade unions who would have liked to have been able to respond to the urge for increased production at a much earlier date than the date mentioned in this particular Amendment but were prevented from doing so by lack of organisation within their own industry and on the employers' side. In many instances concessions were gained later because there was a recognition by both sides that better organisation must be set up and a better standard of conditions established. If the Minister confines himself to a particular date he may, perhaps, inflict unconsciously or unwittingly upon the many unions whose one desire was to increase production, who had recognised the dangers to the nation at a much earlier date, but only because of the seriousness of the position at a later date were able to gain that organisation that gave them those better concessions and ambitions. I hope those Members of the community will be kept in mind and that the Minister will exercise an elastic conscience with regard to the pre-war practices that were established by the unions and employers who, in the first instance, wanted to increase production in this country.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): As the mover and supporter of the Amendment clearly indicated in their speeches the Minister could not accept the Amendment in its present form, largely for the reasons they outlined. Trade practice is constantly changing and to take a period of 12 months and say that any changes that take place within that period should be restored means that you would prevent any normal development that has taken place during that time from being maintained.
However, it became clear from speeches in the Second Reading Debate that some

alteration would be necessary in regard to the phrase "immediately before that period." The difficulty of fixing a date at any time is that in so doing one draws a line of demarcation and one wonders what comes before and what comes after. A good many inquiries have been made of all the people who ought to know when the changes took place. The earliest agreement that was entered into, in the knowledge of the Ministry—and I cannot imagine an agreement having been entered into, either written or otherwise, without its having come to the notice of the Ministry, in view of the widespread operation of the Ministry's various Departments in connection with industrial organisations—was that referred to by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment; that is to say, the agreement between the West of England Engineering and Employers' Association and the National Society of Coppersmiths, Braziers and Metalworkers, which was dated May, 1939. Therefore, although we cannot accept the Amendment in its present wording, we propose at a later stage to move an Amendment that will give effect to the hon. Member's intention, and in view of this, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I wish to thank the Minister for the consideration he has given to this matter. Although the Coopersmiths' Union is only a small one, it represents some highly skilled men. I know from my own experience of the great contribution which this small number of highly skilled men has made to the national effort, and I know that the consideration which has been given to this matter since the Second Reading Debate will give great satisfaction to these men in particular, and to the men employed in the engineering industry in general. Moreover, I think the step is one which is in the right direction. In the Second Reading Debate, we were able to indicate a number of matters of this sort, and since the Second Reading Debate the Minister and the Ministry have been giving consideration to these matters. I only wish that there had been more of this sort of thing in pre-war days; I am convinced that if there had been the present position would have been much better than it is.

Mr. McNeil: I wish to thank the Minister for his reasonable, if not generous, consideration of the Amendment,


and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "undertaking," to insert,
(including in the case of a local authority the performance of its functions by that authority).
I think the Committee realise that the Ministry are in some difficulty in defining exactly what is meant by the word "undertaking." The Amendment seeks to include within the term "undertaking" workers who, if they are left out, may suffer an injustice. I know that in Clause 8 of the Bill it is stated that undertakings shall be gas, water, electricity, and transport undertakings, and so on, but it appears that because of that description, there is the possibility of people who are doing identical work receiving different treatment. For instance, if a local authority has an electrical undertaking, according to the terms of the Bill the men in that undertaking, who have surrendered their rights in regard to hours, holidays and other privileges, will be entitled to have those things restored, but unless the Bill is altered, it will mean that, although that will be the position with regard to a wireman working in that undertaking, it will not be the position in the case of a wireman employed on maintenance in the town hall. Only those undertakings which are specified, plus some in respect of which there may be a direction by the Minister, will come under the Bill. What I want to avoid is having the Minister faced later on for requests for directions.
With regard to definitions, is a hospital an undertaking? I am connected with a hospital, the first hospital in the country to give nurses a 48-hour week. Because of the war, the nurses have agreed to work from 52 to 56 hours a week. Are they to be protected under the Bill? The same difficulties will arise in the case of such people as relieving officers, who are now doing work which they did not contract to do, members of the clerical staffs of local authorities, and so on. It is easy to give such instances. On reading the Bill, I know that the Minister's intention is to restore the rights of the workers; the very fact of the Bill having been introduced

is an earnest of the Minister's desire that what the workers have surrendered because of the war will be restored to them after the war. It would be a great pity if a good piece of work such as this Bill were to be marred in any way by the omission of some workers who, equally, are entitled to have the restoration of their trade practices. Unless something is done, there will be the danger of people suffering injustices. I know it may be argued that the staffs of local authorities are already protected by virtue of the fact that they are working for local authorities, but I am not sure that that argument is entirely true. There will be progressive local authorities which will be prepared at the end of the war to restore the conditions of service that applied before the war, but possibly some local authorities will undergo a change—for instance, the local authority of which I am a member may perhaps be the worse for my not being there. However that may be, if it is right for us to establish the right of workers in ordinary industry to have restored to them after the war what they have surrendered because of the war, it must be equally right in the case of those engaged in other walks of life.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment, however desirable it may be. The Committee will understand that this Bill was primarily intended and primarily drafted to deal with industrial undertakings. My hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) referred to the different treatment that might be meted out to two men working for the same authority. I want to remind my hon. Friend that undertakings of local authorities which are similar to those run by outside interests are being brought in for the purpose of preventing the very thing which he is afraid would happen. For instance, all tramway undertakings and all gas undertakings are not publicly owned. Therefore, it was essential that both classes of undertakings should of necessity come in. If we attempt to bring in one section of the professional classes, this Bill would need to be broadened to include everybody, which was never the intention. Local authorities are democratically elected, and I cannot think that a local authority would refuse to restore trade practices—if they could be called trade practices—which have been departed from during the war. As I have said, local authorities run tramway undertakings


as well as private enterprise. Local authorities also collect rates, but I do not know of any private enterprise collecting rates.

Mr. Messer: They collect rents.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, they collect rents, but, in the sense that they are industrial undertakings, the employees of the local authorities are covered, and I think that that is as far as it will be possible to go.

Mr. Messer: How about maintenance staffs?

Mr. Tomlinson: I imagine, from the wording of the Bill as it now stands, that maintenance staffs of local authorities are covered because they would be members of an organisation which had entered into agreement with the employers prior to the war. Take the question of town clerks. I do not want to treat this matter humorously, but, if it had been a trade practice for a town clerk to have a cup of tea at 11 o'clock in the morning, I do not think that there would be any objection to that practice continuing, although I do not think that it should be provided for in this Bill. There are many practices which cannot be covered by this Bill, and for that reason I ask local authorities to note the intentions of the Government to meet the requirements of these people. It should be a common policy and a common duty of local authorities to restore these practices. The matter can be looked upon by local authorities—and I am perfectly certain it would be looked upon in this way by the local authority of which I happen to be a member—that, being left outside the Bill, they are put on their honour to go at any rate as far as this Measure.

Mr. Davidson: I take it that the maintenance staff of any local authority who are already in an organisation come under the Bill.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir; if they are covered by an agreement between the organisations.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I think that my hon. Friend overlooked the fact that this matter is specifically dealt with in the Bill. Surely Clause 8 makes it perfectly clear that the Bill does apply to certain specified undertakings carried on by a local authority. In addition it applies in the case of a local authority to

(b) undertakings of such other classes as the Minister may by order direct.
It seems to me that the question is answered by this Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Messer: I must express surprise that a member of the legal profession should not have seen the reason for this Amendment. I do not suggest that he has not read this Clause, but, if he reads it again, he will see that the Minister is going to direct such undertakings. This Amendment seeks to define an undertaking. In view of the fact that the Minister has expressed the Government's desire that all local authorities should act in the spirit of this Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to add:
(3) Where, with a view to accelerating the production of munitions of war, any trade practice obtaining in an undertaking on the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, was departed from after that date and before the beginning of the war period in pursuance or in consequence of a written agreement between an organisation of employers and a trade union, Sub-section (1) of this Section shall apply as if the trade practice had obtained in the undertaking immediately before the war period and had been departed from in the undertaking during that period.
For the purpose of this Sub-section the expression 'munitions of war' includes the whole or any part of any ship, submarine, aircraft, tank or similar engine, arms and ammunition, torpedo, or mine, intended or adapted for use in war, and any other article, material or device intended for such use.
This Amendment seeks to impose the same obligation to restore trade practices which were departed from between 30th April and 3rd September, 1939, for the purpose of accelerating war production, as will apply to departures made during the war period. The Amendment is specifically intended to carry out the intentions of the Amendment put down to the Bill which we discussed a little earlier. It deals with trade practices departed from with a view to accelerating the production of munitions of war. It is necessary to exclude from this Amendment any trade practices which changed in the ordinary course of industrial evolution, and a definition of munitions of war is given. As I stated before, the earliest non-dilution agreement was between the West of England Engineering Employers' Association and the National Society of Coppersmiths. It is not therefore necessary to


provide for the restoration of practices departed from before 30th April, 1939.

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the Minister to explain the limitations of this definition of munitions of war? I am not quite clear whether this would exclude, for instance, a man engaged in the production of switch gear for an electrical station which would not come within the definition: upon such gear might depend the whole production of a coalmine. Would these people be excluded, because, if so, it would seem that this provision needs broadening.

Mr. Tomlinson: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. McNeil: It is my recollection and my fairly confirmed opinion that transport, which seems to be excluded by this definition, also surrendered certain rights. Does it mean by this definition that they are to be excluded and denied the benefit of these rights?

Mr. H. Strauss: The Minister of Labour, in commending the Bill to the House on Second Reading, gave us two arguments which carried great weight, first that the Bill was introduced in fulfilment of a pledge, and secondly that its terms had been agreed between organisations representing employers and workers. I think the Amendment clearly goes beyond the pledge. That is no reason against it if it carries out better the spirit of the pledge, but I should like to know whether the assurance we were given that the Bill had been agreed to by both parties in industry will still apply if the Bill is amended as now proposed.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: There is a danger that if certain things are specified others may be presumed to be left out. Has the Minister gone into the matter whether it is necessary to have specification in these terms? Would it not be better to have more general terms so as to avoid the danger of excluding something which we think ought to be included?

Mr. Tomlinson: This definition is the definition of munitions of war taken from the Official Secrets Act, 1920. The two questions that my hon. Friend has raised are covered, and no difficulty will be raised in consequence of the Amendment. I can assure the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) that the substance of the

Amendment has been agreed between the Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Davidson: I should Like the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate that he fully understands the implications of what hon. Members have said with regard to different industries. Since the Official Secrets Act was passed great progress has been made, in the mind of Members as well as of the country, with regard to what is actually a war industry, and it is generally agreed that one can go to very great limits in the industrial field and find that there is an association between almost every industry in the production of the munitions mentioned in the Sub-section. I should have thought the Mover would have left well alone, because previously I thought we had already covered it by pre-war trade practices. The tightness in the specialisation of these industries arouses misapprehension in many minds. I should like an assurance that coal and steel and transport workers and workers in many industries in their association with the production of ships, torpedoes, submarines and tanks will be fully taken into consideration and that the narrowness of the paragraph will receive the very careful consideration of my hon. Friend's Department.

Mr. Woodburn: With a view to meeting points which have been raised by several Members, I suggest that it should be made clear by putting in after "accelerating" the words "directly or indirectly," because it might be assumed from this wording that the only thing we were concerned with was accelerating in the actual industries themselves the production of these munitions of war. These words will give a clear indication that anything that contributed towards the production of munitions of war would be included in the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: With regard to my hon. Friend's assurance to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Woodburn) as to his doubts about what comes within the category of the production of munitions, as far as industry is concerned there is no doubt about it. As far as industry is concerned anything that contributes to production in heavy industry comes within the Bill. The switchgear that he instanced is part of a power plant, and a large number of factories are employed upon power-plants in order to


enable production to be accelerated. It is necessary to have more power-plants and therefore there has been a great relaxation of pre-war practices in factories manufacturing power-plants. It should be put on record that the Bill covers practices and customs of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: We gained advantages, including shorter hours, during the last war. To-day we can be worked as many as 70 hours a week so long as the shop-workers are over 18. But we have also gained a few advantages, and we do not want to lose them. We know that they are not mentioned, neither have they a right to be mentioned any more than any other particular class of worker, but there are many shop workers who feel that, in handing away many of the rights that they have won, a large number of small businesses and shop keepers and multiple firms will take advantage of something that we have given in a spirit of goodwill to help in the war effort, and we should have some kind of guarantee to protect them. I suggest that the Minister should carefully examine the position of the distributive trades, and particularly the retail trades. Will the Minister give an assurance that our hours will not be lengthened after the war just because there is a lack of organisation on the part of the employers, and probably a slight deficiency of organisation on the part of the workers?

Mr. H. Strauss: I hope that care will be taken not to give any impression outside that we can, by stating our understanding of any words used in the Amendment, in the least affect the way in which this law will be interpreted. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will be very careful as to what undertakings he gives about what will be covered. We tend to overlook what a great step is being taken by moving this Amendment at all. I support it, but I should hesitate to support it if the concession were extended beyond what appears on the Order Paper. In the Bill without the Amendment any trade practice is covered if it was altered subsequently to the outbreak of war, that is to say, on or after 3rd September, 1939. If the concession is to be extended to alterations made at an earlier period it is essential to define it carefully, and the proposal to limit it to munitions of war is a correct one.

Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman will find that many big industrial undertakings who have claimed exemption for their legal advisers on the ground of national security will take great exception to his remarks.

Mr. Strauss: I do not quite follow the hon. Member's point. If we did not have this Bill at all there would, of course, be free bargaining by the trade unions with all their powers and rights in order to get a restoration or development of whatever practice they wished. The novelty of the Bill is that it makes it compulsory to return to pre-war trade practices and makes it a criminal offence not to do so. Now there is proposed a great and important further step which I support but which ought to be clearly defined. The clearest date to take is the date of the beginning of the war, and that was the date prescribed originally in the Bill. If an earlier date is fixed for any trade practice the departure from such practice must somehow be connected with war purposes. Therefore, I strongly support the Government's Amendment, which limits the provision to munitions of war. It would be dangerous to indicate to the House that this, that or the other would be covered by the Amendment unless it were clearly within the words. To that extent I am in agreement with hon. Members opposite who raise the question. They themselves see the importance of these words, but while they plead for a modification of the words to cover a greatly increased number of processes of production, I think the words are right as they stand and that it would be dangerous to extend them or to give any undertaking as to what is included in them.

Mr. Woodburn: Do I take it from what the hon. Member says that he agrees with my interpretation that a court might say that this Amendment is limited to the people who are actually producing munitions of war and not to anybody who is producing things which contribute to the production of munitions?

Mr. Strauss: I respect the doubt that is in the hon. Member's mind, but he ought to observe the whole of the Amendment, including the concluding words of the definition—
any other article material or device intended for such use.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I would not have risen but for the comments of the hon. Member for Norwich


(Mr. H. Strauss). I would like him to understand that those of us who are connected with the distributive trades have always had a feeling that because they are not as well organised as the mining, cotton and engineering industries they do not get the same treatment from the Government and not because of their rightful claims. The distributive trades have given up more practices in this war than any other industry.

Mr. H. Strauss: If that has happened during the war the distributive trades are fully covered without the Amendment. The Amendment applies to practices that were changed after 30th April, 1939, but before the outbreak of war. Unless the hon. Member is saying that the practices of the distributive trades were changed before the war with a view to the war and increasing the output of munitions, he is not concerned with the Amendment.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Wherever a trade practice has been varied from April, 1939, in view of the prospect of war I would not be surprised if it was because shopkeepers started employing females instead of males. Practices would have been changed consequent on that. Those of us who are connected with the distributive trades are not able to speak with the great authority of those who speak for the miners, engineers and textile operatives because they are organised very much better. The Government have done well in bringing this Amendment forward, because it would be a great pity if certain industries changed their trade practices in view of what they were certain was coming upon us and then the employers took advantage of the fact that the date was as in the Bill originally. Let me say a word which may seem strange to some Members. We have always argued on this Bill that the restoration of trade practices would benefit the workpeople in the main. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) has suggested, shop assistants gained enormous advantages during the last war because of the war. I should not be surprised if they gained some advantages in the reduction of hours because of this war. If employers were working their shop assistants 60 hours a week before the war and the war has compelled them to come down to 48 hours, we shall not want restoration of trade practices in that sense.

Mr. Oliver: I assume that under the Amendment the alterations that have taken place in trade practices are limited to the period between 30th April, 1939, and the outbreak of war, and they are confined also to written agreements. If that is the correct interpretation it must refer to things which have already been done. It cannot refer to some things which are to be done in future, but to something already accomplished, namely, the making of agreements in writing for a departure from trade practices. The Minister must be able to give the House the number of such agreements. That must be known to him or it would be unbelievable that he would introduce this new Sub-section. I should be grateful to him if he would say how many such written agreements have been made to justify the introduction of this new Sub-section. I may have the whole thing wrong, but as the Minister has indicated his assent to my premise I assume that I must be right.
I remember that at the conclusion of the last war we had a similar Act of Parliament to restore trade practices which had been surrendered between 1914 and 1918, but something had happened in the engineering trade during the intervening years. I can speak best of the engineering trade because I have been in that trade myself and it is the one of which I have an intimate knowledge. Before the present war ends, much will have happened in the engineering trade which will make it difficult to determine, with the best will in the world, what the trade practices are. During the last war there was an evolution of the engineering trade. Apart from general broad definitions, such as turners, fitters, grinders and milling machine operatives, there were others, because new machinery had been introduced, bringing new methods. Women were doing work which hitherto had been done by men, or even work which had never been part of the output of the particular factory. It was most complex and difficult to determine what the trade practices were, or would have been in the normal evolution of the industry.
That is why I say that trade practices and customs require much more detailed examination and clearer interpretation, if the Bill is to be of benefit to the workmen employed in industry. Many trades in the past were making motor cars and dynamos, but they will have been switched


over to tanks and aeroplane engines. They will be doing work which is unfamiliar in those factories and there will be the greatest difficulty in defining trade customs and trade practices. That will create a general difficulty of interpretation. I understand that this Clause will have none of the ambiguity which the general sections of the Bill will have. It is limited to what has already been accomplished, namely, written agreements covering a very short period in 1939. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend can give the information for which I have asked.

Mr. McNeil: I should like very shortly to reply to an argument introduced by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss). He seemed to argue for the Clause as it stood in the Bill, and that this limitation should be excluded.

Mr. H. Strauss: I supported the Amendment. I argued against any change in the Amendment.

Mr. McNeil: That may have been the hon. Member's intention, but I could almost repeat some of his words which seemed to have another intention. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take notice of the fact that the hon. Member for Norwich argued that the Bill was a good thing because, if it were not before the House, the trade unions would have to use their normal power to recapture the conditions which were operating before the war. He went on to argue that the Bill was a concession towards the trade unions. It would be most unfortunate if the House or the country were allowed to get the impression that the Bill is a concession. As the Minister said very clearly, it is a restitution. The unions surrendered their powers, as did other sections of the community, because war needs have made it imperative to do so.

Mr. George Griffiths: I want to speak about the mining industry. Different conditions obtain at different pits, and conditions may have been given up at one pit which may not have been given up at another. I am wondering whether the Minister has in mind that this matter must be discussed by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. Can it be discussed by the branch itself which has either given the concession or, in the meantime, has a reconstructed price list which is disadvantageous to the workers, and wants the previous conditions restored? Can the individual pit get the

restoration without having to go to the Miners' Federation? I would like that point to be cleared up. I may be a bit dull, having travelled rather a long time to-day, and be a bit sleepy.

Mr. H. Strauss: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I am asking my question of the Minister.

Mr. Strauss: I only wanted to point out to the hon. Member that the use of the word "mine" in the Amendment is qualified by the words
intended or adapted for use in war.
I do not think it refers at all to a mine in the sense in which the hon. Member used the term.

Mr. Tomlinson: May I call attention to the fact that this Amendment was put down to deal with what has been pointed out as an anomaly? Unless we made restitution for organisations which have made agreements, immediately, or what could be described as immediately, before the war, those people who will have been most patriotic and forthcoming might possibly suffer injustice by not being recognised under the Bill. I want us to get the Bill in perspective. It is definitely laid down here, because it is intended to meet a specific need, that it applies only to the period between May, and 3rd September, 1939. All the things about which the discussion has taken place fall into their proper order after 3rd September, 1939.
In the interests of the country I wish that all the things we have been talking about had happened before that date. It would show that we were a good deal further on the road than we have proved to be, but because there were only few and very specific agreements entered into, it is felt that this provision would meet them. It particularises and defines, with regard to these particular dates. From those dates, every section of workers which has been referred to is included in the Bill.

Mr. Davidson: There is a point which I have made already in discussing a previous Amendment. There were organisations, there were trade unions in this country, who were prevented from obtaining, or from entering into, any such agreement during the period between April and September, 1939, because of the inefficient state of their industry, not


through any fault of the trade union movement. I only wish to draw my hon. Friend's attention to that particular fact when he refers to those who so gallantly came forward in the earlier part of the period.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Offences and penalties.)

Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, to leave out "on summary conviction thereof."
This Amendment deals with summary convictions and I am wandering into the realms of law. Anyone who has studied the Bill will see that a lot of precautions are taken to put the matter in order. First there is the Confederation of Employers and the T.U.C. General Council, who can deal with all these matters before they go any further. If a dispute arises they will examine it and try to come to some agreement. If they fail in that we have a court of arbitration which is, I think, as strong a court of arbitration as anyone could wish to have. I wish to quote the Minister of Labour who was asked a question on that on 3rd February. He said that the court of arbitration:
will be constituted exactly as arbitration courts established under my Ministry are constituted now. Generally, we have a legal gentleman in the chair—and we always proceed on the assumption that legal gentlemen are quite impartial"—
I doubt that
The chairman will be assisted by panels of assessors, in addition to technical experts. That allows for flexibility in regard to advice, in accordance with the particular trade that is being dealt with. We follow the practice of having the assistance of three persons, including one from each side, with a knowledge of industry. In that way, we hope to get a proper decisions based on knowledge as well as impartiality.
One would expect that this court of arbitration would be quite decisive in making its decision and that its decision should be one which would be followed. The question was put to the Minister of Labour by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) about the question of appeal from the decision of the arbitration court. The Minister of Labour replied:

The arbitration court, like all arbitration courts in industrial practice, will give a decision which will be final an1 binding on all parties; and if anyone does not act in conformity with the award, he will be liable to be taken before a court of summary jurisdiction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1942; col. 1083, Vol. 377.]
I do not think there is any need to bring in a court of summary jurisdiction when we have had to go through all the processes I have mentioned. A court of summary jurisdiction cannot alter the award. It is bound to enforce an Order. It is not a question of putting a plea before such a court that the award should be set on one side. All they are asked to do is to see it is carried out. I cannot understand why a court of arbitration should not have that authority. If an employer refuses to carry out an award he will be called upon to pay certain penalties for not having done so. If a court of arbitration, after thorough investigation, and being impartial, reaches a decision, why should it have to go any further? I wish power to be given to the court of arbitration. I believe that in the last war it was given to a special court set up like this.
I am taking as my evidence the statement made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) who said he was taken before that court and smartly fined for not having carried out an award. If that was in operation then why not now? Why should there be all this waste of time if an employer will not conform to something which has been thoroughly examined before an award has been made against him? Why not give the court of arbitration power to say, "This is our decision. Unless you carry it out we shall put our ruling into action just as if it was a court of law"? I think it could be put into the Bill that the arbitration findings shall have the power of law behind them, to be carried out like the decision of a court of summary jurisdiction. Behind this matter lies a lot of old tradition. They were afraid to shake off the idea that everything must go to the court of law whether that is necessary or not. There are a lot of lawyers and they must have jobs, and well-paid jobs. By the procedure as it stands they finally come in for something. I do not think we should lightly let this matter go at a time like this. This Bill is for the purpose of bringing back the recognised practices which trades had before the war


began. Why must all this time be wasted because a few employers refuse to carry out awards of the arbitration board?

Mr. H. Strauss: rose—

Mr. Tinker: May I ask to what profession the hon. Member belongs?

Mr. Strauss: I am a barrister, and I am acting in a most disinterested way in resisting this Amendment. I need not even resist it; I only wish to point out how mistaken the hon. Member is in thinking that if it were carried he would be diminishing the work of the legal profession. On the contrary, he would be greatly augmenting it. If people do not pay their debts or comply with an award you must bring the matter before some court. The only question is, what is the most effective court? The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) suggests that the persons concerned might be brought back to the Arbitration Court which, incidentally, has not yet been given any criminal jurisdiction. But it would be a most inconvenient court to which a man who wished to recover a small sum of money from his employers or to punish them should have to go. The hon. Member will notice that the Arbitration Court having decided about a trade practice, and what sums are due to the employee, there are two remedies. Under Section 4, Sub-section (4):
Any sum due by virtue of any such award to any person employed in an undertaking may be recovered by him summarily as a civil debt from the employer.
Of course, the employer normally will pay without being brought to any court, because if he had to be brought to any court he would be mulcted in costs as well as having to pay the sum due under the award. The court before which he would be brought would be one of the ordinary courts of the country, and not the arbitration tribunal. Clause 5 makes it a criminal offence for the employer to fail to comply with the award. Surely, a court of summary jurisdiction is by far the most convenient court before which to bring the employer. I have no reason to think that an employer would be likely to engage a barrister in a court of summary jurisdiction and not to engage a barrister in a case before the arbitration tribunal. I am sure that the hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that his Amendment is practicable, and in thinking that if his

intentions were carried out it would decrease, instead of increasing, the work of the profession to which I belong.

Mr. Jewson: I oppose this Amendment as strongly as I can, and I would carry the argument against it a little further than was done by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss). Perhaps the greatest safeguard of our liberties is the fact that we have courts of law and judiciaries entirely independent of the Executive. I could not regard an arbitration court set up by some Ministry as qualifying for such a description. It would be almost unthinkable that such a court should be allowed to impose penalties for a criminal offence in failing to carry out Orders that have been made.

Mr. Oliver: I am sure that my hon. Friend has not quite appreciated the Amendment he has moved. I can assure him that there are not many barristers who would seek to obtain a livelihood in a court of summary jurisdiction. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) rightly pointed out that if my hon. Friend's Amendment were carried it would create a perfect El Dorado for the lawyer, because it would be right and proper—unless my hon. Friend's new tribunal excluded all legal representation, which, of course, it has not done so far as the Bill is concerned—for counsel to be heard on both sides, and for them to argue the merits of the award or its application to given circumstances. The fatal defect in the Amendment is that my hon. Friend wants to make the court which makes the award the judge in its own cause—an unusual procedure. The circumstances in which action would be taken would be circumstances in which the employer would argue that the award did not apply. What more appropriate body could be found than a court of summary jurisdiction to consider the merits and demerits of that issue, to see whether the award did apply to the circumstances of the employer who argued that the award did not apply to a certain section of his workpeople? A court of summary jurisdiction must be held to be constituted of people far removed from the issue which the court would have to decide. For that reason, I think my hon. Friend's Amendment ought not to be accepted; and I have no doubt that it will not be accepted.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not think we can allow these legal arguments


to pass without saying a few words about the desire that is expressed to ensure the immunity of the employer. Workmen are never immune. It is very strange that we should get such arguments when the employers are affected. The tribunal can decide that the workers are guilty. I have a definite case of a sheriff being told that he had no jurisdiction but to carry out the award of the tribunal. The tribunal had decided that the worker was guilty, and all that the sheriff could do was to act on that decision. But when an employer is affected, the greatest care must be taken that nothing shall be done which will affect his interests. I suggest that the regulations which are to be presented to the tribunal shall be applied in the most rigid manner to the employers. What sort of situation will be created, when employers are playing ducks and drakes with the regulations, if, in the case of every man affected, proceedings are to be instituted, and counsel are to be engaged to argue for and against each case. The cases are not to be taken in bulk, but for every man affected there will be counsel on both sides; so that we may get 200 or 300 counsel arguing on each side, and a battle raging more devastating than that which is going on in Libya. An agreement may be broken with a trade union or with a whole series of individual workers. To say that the worker or the trade union should be responsible for taking these matters into court and for engaging counsel, and that the employer shall 'engage counsel, means that you will have a whole series of legal battles. This applies only when the employers' interests are affected.
The conditions governing whatever restoration there is should be so clear and explicit that when the employer refuses to implement any agreement he will be immediately subject to the penalties which are laid down, without any question of taking him into court to argue whether he has committed a breach or not. There are hundreds of cases that may be mentioned of workers who, immediately they have refused to comply with an order, have been subject to penalties. [Interruption.] A lot of the employers could do with shooting. It would be a good thing if those who are responsible for the incompetence that we see, were shot. It would save us thousands of lives. One knows of workers who, when they have

refused to go into jobs, have not been given the right to engage counsel and go to court. As soon as they refused, they were held to have committed an offence, and were immediately subject to penalties. The employers should be subject to penalties in the same way. I cannot discuss the cases that I have in mind at the moment, but when I next get the Adjournment I shall be able to show that when the interests of the workers are affected there is no concern shown by the legal gentlemen. The terms laid down should be so clear, so definite, so categorical, that there can be no hesitation whatever in deciding when an employer breaks the conditions in any way, and he should be immediately subject to heavy penalties for such a breach.

Mr. Tomlinson: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment was anxious to prevent the legal fraternity from enjoying themselves as the result of disputes which might take place and which would be affected by this Bill. He knows me sufficiently well to realise that I am not on the side of the legal luminaries from choice but, in this instance, from necessity. He quoted the experience of the last war when the munitions tribunals had the power to inflict penalties or fines. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) for once comes in useful, to me at any rate, because I believe he informed the House that he was the only individual who ever paid the fine. The difficulty of collecting fines is one of the reasons why some other machinery is to be employed, and the effect of the Amendment would be that offenders against this Order would be tried upon indictment which means that they could not be taken before courts of summary jurisdiction. I do not know a lot about the law but I do know that when legal luminaries appear at assizes, the costs are a great deal more than when a case comes before the magistrates.

Mr. Messer: A man must first go before petty sessions.

Mr. Tomlinson: He would probably go before both. That would be the effect of the acceptance of the Amendment. To me a much stronger reason for resisting the Amendment is that the procedure provided under the Bin has been agreed upon by both parties in industry. Hon. Members will have seen that the Minister himself has put down an Amendment


under which he can take proceedings, if the need arises, and that, I think, answers what was in the mind of most hon. Members when they suggested that court proceedings ought to be possible.

Mr. Davidson: I wanted to speak before the Parliamentary Secretary because I was rather astonished at the attitude which was adopted by one or two of my colleagues on this side of the Committee, and, in particular, at the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). He seemed to have forgotten that one of the worst things that happened in the opinion of the working classes all over the country, and particularly of what we call the fighting Left of the working classes of this country, was the inclusion of legal advisers in the tribunals affecting working class conditions in every phase of their life. We have constantly had protests during all our fights in the trade union and working class movements from working class organisations with regard, to the establishment of the legal mind over what were termed human factors in coming to decisions before tribunals. The result of the Amendment, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, would be that this would not be a fight between an individual worker and an employer.
I recall that only in recent weeks my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife was one of the first to enter the Lobby to vote for the Vote of Confidence which many of us did not do, because of the feelings that had been expressed by working class people all over the country. To raise this question so soon after casting such a vote seems to me to be bad parliamentary tactics. But I would stress the important point that this would not be a fight between a poor working man and a very rich employer, but between a trade union organisation and an employers' organisation. It would involve probably prolonged legal arguments and decisions in connection with the arbitration board and consequently heavy expense to the trade union movement itself. That is something we have always tried to avoid in the arbitration courts. I believe that the Minister is protecting the organisation and all sections of industry in this matter from interference by the law, and we ought to welcome this Clause

as it stands and not support the well-intentioned but misguided Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker).

Mr. Gallacher: I will not pay any attention to the childish babblings of the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) but I would point out to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that as far as the Regulation concerning workers is concerned, it is made clear that they can be given certain instructions to go here or go there. If they refuse they will be liable to penalties, and as a consequence, when the case of a worker comes before an appeal tribunal and the decision goes against him, all that is left to be done is to impose the penalty. Such cases do not go before the court in the ordinary way. The appeal court decides, and there is no case on record where it has been a question of whether or not sentence was to be imposed upon a particular worker. The only thing that is ever done is to try and show not that there should not be a sentence but that it should be of a mild character. The fact remains that the conditions applying to the workers differ entirely from the conditions laid down in this Bill with regard to the employers.

Mr. Messer: I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn. I am certain that on consideration the workers themselves would realise that, were penalties to be imposed otherwise than by a court of law, it would be a very serious thing for this country. When anybody refuses the direction of the Minister of Labour with regard to work they go to the appeal tribunal and nothing can be done with them until the court has decided. The court has to decide their guilt before any penalty can be imposed and the court has also the right to say, that, while the tribunal were correct, yet there were such circumstances in the case that they would not apply a penalty. The court have that right. If you should take the right of imposing a penalty out of the hands of, the court and put it into the hands of any other tribunal, it would be striking a blow at the foundations of what some of us believe to be the only real protection that the workers possess. We know there are benches which are occupied by prejudiced people and that human weaknesses express themselves in decisions in the courts but that does not alter the fact that if you were to set up any irresponsible tribunal


you would have the same weaknesses. Take the case of a man who goes to court and has an opportunity of going before a jury when the chairman says "Will you have the case tried summarily or will you go to the sessions?" He can decide to be tried by his own people, who have no interest in his case whatsoever, and by people who, so far as they can be obtained, are impartial. It would be a bad thing for the workers of this country if they were to place into the hands of an irresponsible body a duty which is now the duty of a court of justice.

Mr. Woodburn: I hesitate to intervene after so many Members have tried to make this matter clear but there is a point which ought to be made. An arbitration tribunal is frequently composed of equal numbers from each side and a so-called impartial chairman. If a dispute is submitted to them and is so controversial that they cannot give a decision the so-called impartial chairman has to decide. He may or may not be a person who is dealing with the matter from a legal point of view. In a court there is an obligation upon a judge to protect the citizen and, in spite of what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has said, a man before a court is innocent until he is proved guilty—

Mr. Gallacher: It does not apply in this case.

Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps the hon. Member will recall instances where people, obviously guilty in the eyes of the general public, were found not guilty in court because there was no evidence upon which they could be convicted. I hesitate to discuss what happens in English courts but, unless I am mistaken, by the deletion of the words "on summary conviction thereof" you would automatically instigate a charge on indictment which would give rise to a jury trial which might last for several days. I have taken part in jury trials where the judge has had to censure the parties concerned for involving the litigants in high legal expenses because of the charge on indictment instead of having the matter dealt with in some other fashion. I suggest that summary conviction is the quickest, cheapest and fairest way of disposing of a matter of this kind.

Mr. Tinker: My sole idea was to shorten the procedure but as my Amendment does not meet with the approval of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 36, to leave out "association of trade unions" and to insert,
by or on behalf of the Minister.
The words "association of trade unions" are rendered unnecessary by an Amendment which the Minister has put down to Clause 11, which will include associations of trade unions in the definition of trade unions. The insertion of the words "by or on behalf of the Minister" will enable legal proceedings to be taken against an employer by or on behalf of the Minister for non-compliance with an award of an arbitration tribunal. This carries out the intention of the Amendment which has been put down to this Clause by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and the reasons for it have been stated on many occasions. It is in order to enable either an association or an individual who are aggrieved, and who are not able to take proceedings, to obtain justice through the intervention of the Minister.

Mr. McNeil: This Amendment meets a situation which provides, plainly, no solution for the good citizen who loses his job, and for the small trade union or workman who dare not exact his legal privileges for fear of victimisation. I was anxious that power should be given to the Minister so that the weaker unions or individuals might be protected.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. E. Smith: Before we part with this Clause I would like to draw the Committee's attention to one or two matters in Sub-section 1 to which, I hope, between now and the Report stage attention will be given by the Minister. This Sub-section states:
and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £25.
Later it states:
and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £25 for each day on which the default continues.


I suggest it would be quite reasonable it the amount of the fine were raised to £100 in each case. I know of several undertakings who would find it good business to pay a fine of £25 per day for not carrying out a decision. There are thousands of operations in modern industry, particularly in instrument making and the manufacturing of switch-gear and power-plants, where the sub-division of labour has been carried to such an extent, through girls and women, that employers would be able to pay this £25 fine "for ever." Contrast that sort of treatment of employers with the treatment which is meted out to our working men and women who do not carry out the directions of a Government Department. A large amount of feeling is being caused in industrial circles because of the action that is being taken against miners who have been absent and against engineers who have been responsible for absenteeism. It should be remembered that many of these men have had their physique undermined as a result of their industrial experience in the 10 years before the war, and for that reason they are not able to keep pace with the present-day demands of industry. Sometimes they have to take a day or two off.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I do not think the question of absenteeism is in Order on this Bill.

Mr. Smith: I admit that, Colonel Clifton Brown. I was simply giving a concrete example of how, on the one hand, we propose in this Bill to fine firms only the small sum of £25, and, on the other hand, how the House has been responsible for passing Defence Regulations which enable men to be fined £100 and suffer terms of imprisonment of from three months to nine months. I am contrasting the treatment of firms as proposed in this Bill with the treatment of men under the Defence Regulations. Under Defence Regulation 58 (a), action has been taken against individuals. They are liable to imprisonment and fines; some have been imprisoned for three months or more and others have been fined £100. I ask that before we part with this Clause, the Committee will consider that differentiation in treatment, and that between now and the Report stage the Minister will give consideration to our deliberations in order that we may treat firms in the same way as individuals are being treated.

Mr. Tinker: I want to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith). I think that the maximum penalty should be greater. Under the Bill, no matter how serious the offence, the maximum fine which the court can impose will be £25. Of course, I recognise that a firm might commit a small breach of the law, and in that case, even if there were a higher maximum, the court would not necessarily impose the maximum fine. However, if the possibility of imposing a fine of £100 existed, it would be a greater deterrent. I think that the feeling of the Committee ought to be taken on matters of this sort. It would cause an employer to be very careful if he knew that not only would a very heavy penalty be imposed if he broke the law, but that if he continued to break it, he would have to go on paying that heavy penalty. I hope the Minister will consider the appeal I have made.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) has raised two points. The first is the amount of the fine, and on that issue I do not feel that I have sufficient knowledge to say what the limit of the fine should be.

Mr. Tinker: We suggest £100.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is a matter on which there would have to be a great deal, of study of precedents, values, and all sorts of circumstances and conditions. I would not be prepared to say now whether the fine should or should not be higher, although I think there is some substance in the argument that it might pay a firm to continue breaking the law and paying the fine. The hon. Member for Stoke raised another point when he compared the treatment of a worker under the Defence Regulations with the treatment of a firm, not under the Defence Regulations, but under this Bill. If he had taken the parallel of the treatment of a worker under the Defence Regulations and the treatment of a firm under the Defence Regulations, he would have found that the firm could be treated just as drastically as the worker. I think he was wrong not to compare like with like. There may be something in the argument about raising the amount of the fine, but I am sure the hon. Member prejudices any soundness there may be in that argument by quoting two entirely separate states and conditions of affairs.

Mr. Silverman: I think the point made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) is based on a misconception. Surely, it is fair to compare the position of a worker under the Defence Regulations, who is being compelled by the exigency of the national situation to give up something that is his, with the position of a firm compelled, not by the Defence Regulations but by this Bill, to give it back to him when the exigency has passed. I should have thought that my hon. Friend was making an equitable Comparison.
There is one point that I would like to make. Obviously, there are circumstances in which, if the penalty cost the employer less than compliance with the award, we should be placing a valuable premium on failure to comply with the award. I am certain the Committee would not wish to do that. If that possibility could be obviated by some Amendment on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, I should have thought that the Minister would have been very glad to consider such an Amendment. I quite appreciate that it may be very difficult and probably impossible to carry out, but I wonder whether attention has been given to the following idea. Is there any way in which the award of the tribunal can be made operative without relying upon the action of a recalcitrant employer? There are, of course, some trade practices in connection with which that could not be done, but in others it might be possible to do it. Will the Minister consider putting into the Bill any machinery which would have this effect, that where an employer has been convicted of failure to comply with an award, it should not be left to him to incur further penalties by further failure to comply, but the State itself should operate some machine by which the award of the tribunal can be made operative? I think the point is a clear one, but whether there is any way of devising machinery to meet such a difficult and complicated position, I do not know. If not, obviously the idea would have to be abandoned, but in the case of some practices, I think machinery could be devised. If so, it would give much better protection to the workers than would the imposition of a penalty in the case of continued failure to comply.

Mr. Davidson: From the point of view of the fine acting as a deterrent upon the

worst type of employer, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give this matter his most serious consideration. It will be within the recollection of most hon. Members that we had a very striking instance of an employer who was sharply fined during the last war and who stated in this House quite recently that he had been so fined; therefore, the sting of a sharp fine must be very operative indeed, when it is remembered 25 years after the event. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to remember that when the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) stated, as an employer, that he had been sharply fined during the last war, that was one of the strongest arguments that could be put forward now for a sharp fine being imposed on the worst type of employer.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Will the hon. Member tell the Committee what the hon. Member for Mossley was fined for?

Mr. E. Walkden: He did not know himself.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: He said that he had been fined for paying more wages than he ought to have done.

Mr. Davidson: The hon. Member has asked a question and answered it himself. The point is that after 25 years the hon. Member for Mossley remembers that he was sharply fined. That is an argument that there is something that will affect the worst type of employer, namely, sharp punishment.

Dr. Russell Thomas: The hon. Member for Mossley is not the worst type of employer.

Mr. Davidson: I want the Committee to note the force of the argument I have made. I am merely pointing out the moral, which is a good moral, namely, when a particular employer is sharply fined and remembers it after 25 years have passed, it must have had a beneficial effect. We have had all kinds of impositions placed upon all types of the community, but my hon. Friend must bear in mind that a £10 fine for the average worker is much worse than a £25 fine for the average employer.
My hon. Friend must agree that there is a temptation to the mischievous employer who is prepared to throw away £25 for sheer obstinacy. I ask my hon.


Friends to remember some of the prewar speeches made in this House, or speeches made in accordance with pre-war practices. Those speeches indicated that certain types would go to any length in order to cause, through their obstinacy and mischievousness, the maximum trouble in industry. We have seen it time and again. We have seen associations of employers agree on a set principle and plan, and then an employer breaking away and making trouble by cutting prices and so on. These employers can cost the nation hundreds or even thousands of pounds before a question is settled. Their action may bring about protracted negotiations, loss of time and, eventually, Questions in this House. The usual custom employed by all Departments in legislation such as this should be followed. I consider that the advice of the Law Officers should be taken, and that the usual words "a fine not exceeding £100" would act as a far greater deterrent. Such a provision would be much more suitable because the courts could be given power to decide the amount of the fine.

Mr. Tomlinson: The hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. Silverman) asked whether or not some device for putting into effect the findings of the tribunal could not be discovered so as to prevent these things taking place. It is fairly obvious, if it had been at all practicable to do so, that the necessity for this Clause would not have arisen. I am glad that the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) has raised the question of a deterrent or penalty. I am inclined to think that conviction is far more important than the penalty attaching, although at the same time I recognise the strength of the argument put forward and that there may be something to be said for increasing the amount. However, I will consult the Minister and the Department about this. With regard to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), he paid the fine of £10 and continued the offence. By increasing the amount to £25 and making it recurrent, it would probably have got over the difficulty of the hon. Member on the last occasion. As I have said, the amount of the fine is very little, even if it were extended to £100, compared with the conviction, I am prepared to look into this question again of whether it should be £25 or £100, although I must confess that

some employers are just as capable of paying a £100 fine as they are a £25 fine.

Mr. E. Walkden: Could we not include a term of imprisonment as a substitute for a fine? I have a recollection of people who recognise the law when they fear imprisonment but do not care two hoots about it when it is a case of a fine.

Mr. Tomlinson: Imprisonment is never easy. The difficulties over imprisonment in wartime are not a very pleasant experience. I am hoping, when this war is over, and this Bill deals with after the war, that the desire to imprison people will be a good deal less than at the present time.

Question put, and agreed to.

"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Application to the Crown.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. E. Smith: I was a member of an organisation which was involved in a 10-year legal battle, and at some considerable cost, over the words "may" and "shall." I shall never forget the experience we had in regard to a national agreement which was arrived at in the engineering industry. If this country and the Government benefit by the last postwar experience, they will continue to run a number of State factories so long as is possible. Hon. Friends of mine who hold the same view hope that we shall benefit by our experience to run a number of State factories and industries, but, even if that does not happen, it will be necessary to run a number of Royal Ordnance factories. Therefore I suggest the substitution of the words "shall by Order in Council." I understand that in the past this has not been done and that the Correct interpretation of "may" is "shall," but we have found by experience that it is what is in the Bill is what matters and I should like an assurance that, if possible, the word "shall" shall be inserted.

Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot give an assurance on those lines, but I can give an assurance that it is intended that the principle that is applied to industry shall be applied to Government undertakings.

Question put, and agreed to.

"That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

CLAUSE 8.—(Application to local authorities.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Messer: I am not entirely satisfied that all classes of local authorities will be covered by what was said on Clause r, and I am wondering whether my hon. Friend will ask the Minister of Health to circularise local authorities to the effect that those classes of workers who are not covered by the Bill shall be treated in the same way as they would have been had they been within its scope.

Mr. Tomlinson: I think I can safely give that assurance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, at the end, to insert:
'organisation of employers' except in section two of this Act includes an association of two or more such organisations.
This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that for the general purposes of the Bill there is no distinction between an employers' organisation and an association of such organisations.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, at the end, to insert:
and except in Section two of this Act includes an association of two or more such combinations.
This Amendment makes it clear that, except in Clause 2, there is no distinction for the purposes of the Bill, between a trade union and an association of trade unions. This and the previous Amendment do not apply to Clause 2 because that Clause deals with the waiving by agreement between employers and trade anions of the right to restoration, and it is necessary to restrict the right to make such agreements to an employers' organisation of which the employer is a member and to an association of trade unions concerned with the maintenance of a trade practice.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Naylor: The last three words of Clause 2 are, "between masters and masters." There is no definition of "masters" in Clause 11. I am sorry that the word has crept into the Bill. I intended to move to substitute "employers," but unfortunately I was detained and arrived too late to do so. I hope the Minister will consider it of sufficient importance to make the change on Report and to substitute "employers." The time has gone by when working men regard their employers as masters. It seems to me a great pity that we should mark a progressive Measure of this kind by such an antediluvian expression as "masters."

Mr. Tomlinson: I will look into the point, but a master can be master in his own household, without being an employer, or in association with employers who are masters in their own business.

Mr. Naylor: It is true that he can be a master in his own house, but he is not a master, in this sense, in the factory.

Mr. Tomlinson: It does not mean, of necessity, that he is the owner of the factory.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with Amendments, as amended, to be considered upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — WAR ORPHANS BILL.

As amended, considered: read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [LORDS].

As amended, considered read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

The remaining Orders were read aid postponed.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH ARMY (PAY).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Dugdale.]

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Had I been satisfied with the increase in Service pay and allowances as announced to-day by the Prime Minister, I should not be raising this matter now, but I have had an opportunity of examining the White Paper to which we were referred, and also of looking at the information to which the Under-Secretary of State for War referred me in answer to my Question earlier on. As a result I am not satisfied, and I do not think that any reasonable individual in examining these increases in pay and allowances would be satisfied.
I intend to concentrate on the Army and emphasise the unfair financial position in which our private soldiers find themselves as compared with our industrial workers and as compared with soldiers who are in this country from overseas. It will simplify matters if, in the comparisons I am about to make between our soldiers and the soldiers of other countries, I take the minimum rates of pay. From the information I have been able to obtain it seems that the minimum rate of pay of a non-tradesman private in the United States Army who is now in the British Isles works out at about 5s. per day. The minimum rate for the similar kind of private in the Canadian Army is 5s. 2d., and in the Australian Army 6s. 9d. The British equivalent receives 2s. 6d. From then onwards the increases in each case are more or less proportionate. This discrepancy shows that 5s. a day would be a fair minimum for the British non-tradesman private. That is double what he is receiving now.
The British private often finds himself in a humiliating position when he meets soldiers from other countries. I have spoken to several and they have been rather reluctant at having to meet privates from other countries. In the part of the world where I live the ordinary British private will not go into a "pub" if privates from other countries are there. It is not that they do not like them, but if they go in they are not able to hold their own when it comes to a round of drinks. The "blokes" from other countries, who have more money to spend,

can go to cinemas, to which the British soldier is not able to go. The British private, too, often finds it more than difficult to get even those things that are essential to him. He cannot even afford to buy a sufficiency of stamps, cleaning material, tooth paste and the like.
Our soldiers watch with amazement and frequently with anger the success of the threat of strike action when pressed by a powerful union, as, for example, what occurred the other day at the Betteshanger Colliery. The soldiers know that if any such measure were adopted by themselves it would be termed mutiny, and the penalty for that can be death. The soldiers hear such propaganda slogans as "equality of sacrifice," that "we are all in the front line." What rubbish that is! How can it be claimed that the reserved war industry worker, or any civilian, is making equal sacrifices with the man in the Fighting Services? This "equality of sacrifice" is certainly not to be found in the amount of pay soldiers receive. Can it be claimed that even during the heaviest attacks of the Luftwaffe on this country the sufferings of the civilian population can be compared with the sufferings of our Service men in Crete, Flanders, Malaya and, no doubt, at this moment in Singapore, and in many other places to come? The Service man has often to carry out a duty which means risk of death. He cannot say to his commanding officer in the middle of a battle, "Please, sir, can I go into the shelter?"
There is another angle which I desire to bring before the Under-Secretary. I will give him this example, not that I hope to bring forth any tears from the Front Bench—I think that might be difficult—but because it is typical of something that is happening all the time, possibly hundreds of times or more a week. It is the example of the infantry private who has a wife and family and lives in an industrial area. He gets a week's leave, and by regulation his commanding officer is not able to advance him more than 30s. for his total commitments for that week. Possibly as a result of what has been announced to-day this will be increased to something like 33s. 6d. When the man gets home he very likely at once notices the pathetic efforts of his wife to "put up a show" for him on her meagre allowance. That evening they possibly decide to go to the "local" in order to meet his old friends who were in industry with him


and sometimes his relations. I know of cases when that has occurred where the man did not go twice, because he and his wife felt in an inferior position. He would notice the other women were dressed better than his wife. His wife may be neat, but nevertheless of necessity shabby. They find their old pals only too willing to stand them drinks. Their pals know their financial position. These soldiers do not like that, as they are not in a position to stand their friends a drink in return. In consequence they would rather not go there for the rest of the week's holiday. During that week the soldier could not help noticing that the neighbour's children whose father was working in industry were not only better clothed but were also better fed.
At the end of the week the soldier returns to his unit, and sometimes the week has not been very beneficial to him. It has certainly given him food for thought. He has had to leave his wife to struggle along and he has seen only too well what she has had to undertake during his absence. He is forced to the conclusion: "My country thinks more of her industrial workers than of her soldiers." He realises that he has to be on duty, or available to go on duty, 24 hours in every day. He compares those conditions with the conditions of the industrial workers. When he compares the pay, there is no comparison at all. Do such conditions as that tend towards patriotism? Such a sense of frustration and unfairness reflects seriously upon good morale and discipline, lacking which, a soldier is not properly equipped for war. As we all know, there is a fanatical determination in Russia to subordinate all their labours and wealth to the men who are fighting and dying. "Equality of sacrifice" prevails there; and look at the military result.
Let Parliament express itself. Let us have more of the human touch and understanding and less of the "bank-balance mind." Unless there is some real remedy, unless the fighting man, who has just been thrown a very little bun to keep him quiet, is told in a much more practical way that he is not the forgotten member of the community, very serious things can happen.
I am somewhat surprised to see that the Secretary of State for War is not present. He had ample warning that this matter was to be raised to-day. I should

have thought that if there were a subject which really concerned him, it was this question. We have known the Secretary of State in the past when he was Chief Whip as a champion at looking after the interests of those whom he had sponsored.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend but I ought to point out that Debates of this kind always come on at very uncertain times, and to inform him that the Secretary of State for War is at present attending a very important conference.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: The fact remains that the common soldiers are looking to the Secretary of State for War to safeguard their interests as well as he did in the past the interests of a much smaller section of the community. The Minister of Labour has done very well indeed for those for whom he is responsible. If he had not obtained reasonable conditions for his workers, I feel confident that there would have been a mighty row in Cabinet circles and if he had not obtained satisfaction I have no doubt that he would have resigned, and he would have told the country why he resigned. That would have created some trouble. In those circumstances where would have been the unity of the present National Government? The Secretary of State for War could do as much for his soldiers. If he is unable to do as well as the Minister of Labour was able to do for his workers, I consider that the Secretary of State for War should resign. If the Under-Secretary is to reply to-day it would be of no use for him to confuse the issue by giving a lot of figures, by quoting precedents or even by pointing out that our soldiers, when they come in contact with soldiers in Russia and China, in turn find themselves in a better financial position than that of the Russians or the Chinese. Obviously the mode of life of the Russians and of the Chinese is completely different from that of ourselves and other democratic countries. Nor will it be any use to fall back on the old excuse that we would like to improve the lot of the private soldier but that nevertheless there is "noshing in the till," that we cannot obtain the necessary sums from the Treasury.
We have noticed that the Treasury, whenever it is necessary from their point


of view, always do manage to find the money. Also, we have noticed that the Treasury have found immense sums for the Ministry of Labour. I do not begrudge the fair increases of industrial workers but just look at the increases there have been since the Minister of Labour has occupied his present position, to sometimes from £4 to £10 per week. It is the Treasury that has to find that in the end. Other countries supposed to be poorer than we are, are able to find a sufficiency of money in order that their soldiers should have decent pay. Such excuses as those will not do. If the present Secretary of State for War and his Under-Secretaries and his Financial Secretary are the right men for the job they will get their thinking caps on and they will get their influence to work. When you consider their combined influence it is very great; indeed quite as much as that of the Minister of Labour, if not more. They could soon find means of obtaining for their soldiers a fairer deal, if not to the extent enjoyed by our industrial workers, at any rate approximating to the financial conditions prevalent to soldiers from overseas.

Major Wise: I take this opportunity of readdressing the House, after a very long absence. I would yield to nobody in my desire that our soldiers should get more pay, and I feel that any effort to provide them with more pay should be looked upon with benevolence. But we should try to put this matter into a proper perspective. I have had in the past two years a good deal of experience with British soldiers stationed alongside soldiers from the Dominion of Canada and from the United States, and I have never seen these heart-rending occasions on which the British soldier moves miserably from a cafe because he cannot afford to pay for his round of drinks. In these cases—and certainly in the case of the Canadians—it is at the discretion of the senior officer exactly how much pay the soldier shall receive in his station, and that amount is graded according to what the officer thinks would lead to the least possible friction between his troops and others.

Captain Cunnigham-Reid: I was not making any comparison as between the Canadian soldier and the American soldier, because they receive about the same amount of pay. I was making a

comparison between the British soldier and the other soldiers.

Major Wise: That is exactly what I was doing. In the case of the Canadians, the sum drawn is very little larger than that drawn by the British soldier. The remainder of the Canadian's pay—which is admittedly larger—is banked for him in Canada. There has been no ill-feeling or difficulty created between the Canadian and British soldiers. Now that the United States soldiers are serving with our own, the position is that, although the pay of the United States soldier is larger, it is not vastly larger. The United States soldier gets about one dollar a day, subject to odd deductions. The British soldier, if he has been on active service for any length of time, is drawing quite a substantial sum by the time he has drawn basic pay, proficiency pay and, in some cases, tradesmen's pay.

Mr. Bellenger: That is a limited number.

Major Wise: Not so very limited. Proficiency pay is drawn by, I think, about 75 per cent.

Mr. Bellenger: But the tradesmen do not draw proficiency pay and you have to deal with the vast mass who are not tradesmen.

Major Wise: The vast mass, who are not tradesmen, draw proficiency pay, and those who are tradesmen draw tradesmen's pay, which is greater. I think it is a reflection on the good sense of both nations to imagine that they cannot live together in amity on different rates of pay. I usually find that the United States soldier knows that he has more pay, and, with the hospitality characteristic of his race, he frequently insists on paying the bill when the races are together in a cafe; and, with the sterling good sense of the Yorkshiremen—who compose a large proportion of our Army—our soldiers are perfectly prepared to accept that hospitality. There is no ill-feeling as a result. No difficulty arises, in spite of the fact that the two are put together side by side.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does my hon. and gallant Friend suggest that if the British soldier were to offer the American something in return, that good feeling would be dissipated?

Major Wise: Certainly not.

Mr. Baxter: Then why not enable him to do so?

Major Wise: In the part of the country which I know the average labourer employed on munitions is paid at the rate of a British Army captain, and when he does overtime is paid the basic rate of a lieutenant-colonel. When one begins to deal with discrepancies of pay things become increasingly difficult.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman recognise that in Iceland apparently everything, according to his own showing, is different from what it is in this country?

Major Wise: In dealing with the point with regard to the discrepancy between civilian and military wages, I am pointing out that the Icelandic civilian employees seem to be in precisely the same state as the English civilian employees, and, if it is so, there is an extraordinary similarity between the two countries. Although an increase in the soldier's pay is a thing which should always be viewed with the greatest sympathy, and the soldier is probably not paid enough, I suggest that, if his pay is to be increased, it should at least be increased on the ground that his job is more important than that of the civilian. Personally, I believe that the solider is more important than the munition worker and is more difficult to replace, and takes, on the whole, slightly longer to train, and he has to be physically rather fitter. If that is the case, by all means pay him more, because his job is more important, but do not start increasing his pay because he may be socially embarrassed or because of certain other melancholy heart-rending reasons such as were produced by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. A soldier must get money because he is considered to be worth it, but I believe he would resent the idea if he were given money because he was such a poor creature that he was too miserable to go out and earn it himself.
That is not the real spirit in which to approach the question of Army pay. I am also certain that the soldier will not agree with any idea of a compassionate increase of that kind. What the soldier really wants is to know that, if he survives this war, the country will treat him properly when it is over. He wants to know that as soon as the war is over he

will be guaranteed employment in the Army until he is certain that he can find employment elsewhere, and also that his family and dependants will be looked after generously if anything happens to him. These are directions in which reform might be sought and good work done. I resent the suggestion—and I believe that I can speak for a large number of serving soldiers—that the soldier wants charity.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Probably others will wish to take part in this Debate, and therefore I do not propose to speak very long, but I desire to make one or two points. Although it is perhaps difficult to differ from the hon. and gallant Member, I cannot help feeling that he cannot speak for the vast majority of the men now serving in the Armed Forces. Surely common sense is against the tenour of the remarks that he has offered to the House. The facts are simple and plain. The ordinary soldier gets in theory 17s. 6d. a week, but it is rather like the standard Income Tax of 10s. in the pound. Although in theory he gets it, yet in actual fact he receives nothing like it. It would be true to say that he may get paid weekly or fortnightly and that the amount he gets would average out at about 10s. to 12s. 6d. a week. We must remember just what has to be done with that 12s. 6d. It is probably not untrue to say that a young soldier, coming into the Services, may not have as big an appetite as an older man. He may, for instance, prefer a cup of tea or a cup of coffee to a glass of beer. His consumption of cigarettes may be, and most likely is, not the same as that of a man who is older and, therefore, it may be argued that for a young soldier an over-all 17s. 6d. per week, even though he does not draw it, might be adequate.
But I would like to draw the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to the fact that we have now coming into the Armed Forces men who ages will range from 35 to 51 and, beyond any doubt, these men have become used to spending more money in the course of a week than the amount which a soldier receives. The War Office should take that fact into account. Many of these middle-aged men will not, in all probability, be going abroad. They will undoubtedly want more than 12s. to 15s. 6d. a week to spend on incidentals. Unless the War Office does take this into account, we


shall have a good deal of dissatisfaction and ill-feeling among men who, possibly, have given up businesses which they have worked hard to get together. If they have to come into the Forces we should compensate them so far as we can, realising what wages are being obtained in private industry.
In the last war a vast majority of the men in the Services served overseas and it was difficult, if a man spent a long period in the trenches, for him to spend much money. He saved it while he was in the trenches and had it by him to spend when he was out in support or resting. Nowadays, most of the Armed Forces of the Crown are domiciled in this country; they move among civilians, see them spending their money and themselves feel that they ought to have a certain amount a week but have not got it. This leads to dissatisfaction among these men. Therefore, I ask the War Office to reconsider this matter and see whether something can be done to increase the pay of the older men, both single and married, who are now coming into the Forces.

Mr. MacLaren: I want to be identified with this plea to the War Office to-day. Yesterday a woman called to see me to explain the circumstances in which her little boy had been drowned in a pool near a local pithead. I asked her why she was obliged to go out and leave her little boy of four years of age, and she said "I have a baby of about seven months and this boy, and since my husband was called to the Army, I could not possibly make ends meet." Therefore, she went out three days a week to work as a bus conductor in order to supplement her means. She was very gravely concerned about the health of her two children. Her income was 39s. a week—recently raised to something like £2 1s. a week—and the rent for her house was 15s. a week. The baby was in rather a delicate state of health, and she told me that it took some 12s. a week to maintain the baby. Then, being a young married woman, there were certain obligations in connection with the household which she had to meet. Altogether, she said, when she had met the overheads and the requirements of her family, she was at her wits' end to know what to do. I am sure there is hardly a Member in the House who could not repeat a similar story, and anyone like myself, who believes

very fundamentally in certain rights, would say that if a man is asked to defend his country, whatever is required to maintain that man, his wife and dependants should be a first charge on the country.
At the moment, we are witnessing the continuation of the old conception of the Army as a mercenary army. We ought to have got far away from that conception. It is true that the soldiers have been given slight increases in income, and we have had promises from the Prime Minister to-day, but even those promises, in terms of money, having regard to the ruling cost of living, are entirely insignificant. One can scarcely touch this subject without one's mind running into a thousand avenues of thought—how the money market is rigged, how prices are rigged, how money means nothing in certain directions, and how, if you want money, you have only to turn on the printing press. But one does not want to pursue those lines of thought. This House ought to declare what in its opinion is a standard of comfort. For years we have talked about the cost of living—not that it has meant very much—and a vast amount of data has been collected by various Ministries, and by this time the Government ought to be able to ascertain what is a standard of comfort for a family, and see that when a man is taken away from his family—or the breadwinner, in the case of a son—that standard of comfort is maintained in that household, more especially if the person is called to the battlefield to risk death to defend an empire or a country. I think it is despicable, to say the least, that we should at this date be haggling about soldiers' requirements. Surely, this country is wealthy enough to see that those who are standing between us and the enemy, who may destroy the whole institutions of the country, have some standard of comfort for their households.
The position is sickening to-day, when people come to one with various complaints about lack of income, and fathers and sons taken away; it is dreadful, more especially when married women have to go away to the factories and leave little children without a mother's care or any guidance, merely to supplement their means because the soldier's pay is insufficient. These things should be gone into. I could not allow this Debate to pass without identifying myself with this appeal, although in different circumstances,


and with greater amplitude in your Ruling, Sir, I might have been tempted to correlate this matter with other factors; but I appeal to the War Office to try to strike what I would call, without being too definitive, a standard of comfort and to see that no soldier, his wife, children or dependants are allowed to suffer any economic hardship as the result of these men taking risks that other men would rather eschew and live in comfort.

Major Milner: As I understand it, the hon. and gallant Member who introduced this Debate based his claim very largely on the rates paid to Dominion troops, and, I believe, to American troops. It is perfectly clear that the rates paid to these troops are far in excess of those paid to our own. The position has been aggravated by American troops coming over here, because they apparently receive 30 dollars per month, or almost 5s. per day, whereas our men in the lowest ranks receive only 2s. 6d. per day. That comparison is, of course, very invidious, even taking into account the increase in the cost of living in the United States and in the Dominions. It cannot be satisfactory that our men should be serving alongside men from the Dominions and the United States whose pay is certainly double, and, in the case of Australia, approximately three times as much.
However, I consider that there is an even more urgent claim in respect of wives and children. Surely, even with the additions made to-day, it cannot be claimed that 8s. 6d. for the first child, 6s. 6d. for the second child and 5s. for the third and subsequent children is sufficient. These figures cannot be justified by anyone. Certainly they cannot be justified by the Government who pay 10s. 6d. in the case of an evacuee child; even in that case the parent still continues to provide the child with clothing. Therefore, I press the Government to reconsider the question of allowances in respect of children. Then there is the case of a wife. I recognise that the present figure of 25s., including an allotment of 7s., may be appropriate in the case of a young wife who has been recently married. In some cases it is said, and in a few instances it may be true, that a young wife has married in order to receive the allowance, but, as I say, although it may be right

for a wife without children and household responsibilities to receive 25s., it is not sufficient for a woman with household responsibilities and children, and certainly it is not sufficient in the case of a wife who is unable to go out to work to earn additional money because of physical disability or illness. How can she hope to pay rent and provide for herself on 25s. per week? I know that the Government will say with some truth that the War Service Grants Committees have helped the situation. I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement, and I recognise that the Government have assumed very heavy additional responsibilities, but I consider that adequate pay and allowances should be the first charge on our finances. Unless our fighting men are fairly and reasonably paid and have contentment of mind, it is impossible for them to show that enthusiasm, zeal and initiative which we all know they possess.
Therefore I hope the Government will try to devise a basic system whereby the man and woman in the Services shall receive an adequate basic rate, and that his or her dependant also receive adequate and sufficient allowances and, having in mind the rations supplied by the Army and the other facilities, all of which can be counted in terms of money, they should on the whole bear some approximate relation to what is received by Dominion troops and by workers engaged in industry. Troops are not all accommodated in satisfactory billets. Many are in isolated posts some distance from towns, many have no facilities for amusement, and it is impossible to believe that the amounts at present paid are adequate. Also the position between a man with dependants and a single man is a difficult one. Up to to-day the married man without dependants received 17s. 6d., less some small amount of stoppages, to spend for himself, whereas a man with dependants who had to make an allotment was left with only 10s. 6d., less stoppages.
If one tots up the amount that might reasonably and fairly be expected to be spent on food—I mention food particularly because in the great majority of instances soldiers have to go to the canteen and spend 8d. to 10d. on food, as the last meal is frequently at 5 o'clock and, if there is supper, it is soup, which is not satisfactory and is


partaken of by a very few—if one takes into account the provision of food, a packet of cigarettes a day and the necessity of going to the town once or twice a week for recreation, newspapers, stamps and so on, there is not really anything left. In fact, there are men who to my knowledge have to receive subventions from their families. There are wives and mothers sending money every week to sons or husbands in the Army. One does not wish to exaggerate the gravity of the situation and it has been improved a little, grudgingly and always under pressure. If the Government would look at the picture as a whole and fix an adequate basic amount for pay and allowances which would bear some fair and reasonable approximation to what is earned in civil life and what is received by Dominion and American troops, we might happily leave the question altogether, feeling that the Services were being properly paid, and, whilst one knows that there is a war on and that expenses are great, the fair and reasonable thing had been done and that if all that is desired had not been done the Government had made a fair and reasonable effort to meet the situation. At present that is not altogether the case. To-day's announcement was a great improvement; nevertheless, attention must still be paid to the question of children's allowances, which are quite indefensible, even with today's addition, and there should be some further allowance for wives who have household responsibilities. If that were done and there were an adequate basic rate the Government would have done all that could be reasonably expected of them and the men would have no excuse not to put forward the efforts of which we know they are capable. I hope that the Government will take these matters into early and serious consideration.

Mr. Bellenger: I want to add a footnote to what has been said, because I fancy that the Under-Secretary will not be able to give anything like a reasoned answer to the Debate. I imagine that he will fall back on the Prime Minister's statement to-day and the White Paper. I want, however, to express a point of view evoked by the hon. and gallant Member for Smethwick (Major Wise)—whom we are glad to see hack, if only for a short time. He has some experience of the Americans. I wonder

whether he has had any experience of the Canadians. The psychological effect on the Canadians of having a certain rate of pay—of which in truth they draw only one-half while here—is that generally speaking they let it go wherever they are. They must get the money from somewhere. They draw only the equivalent of the British soldier, but if I am correctly informed the half of their pay which is credited to them in Canada can be assigned to somebody there. If that is so, it is possible that money and many other things can come back to this country to the Canadian soldier.

Major Wise: The hon. Member is right about other things, but I do not think it is possible for money to be transmitted. There is a rigid control over that. It should not be possible to send money to this country, but I do not know whether there are loopholes.

Mr. Bellenger: In any case, the standard of living among the Canadian troops in this country is considerably higher than that among the British. Wherever the money comes from it comes, and the effect on the British soldier, serving cheek by jowl with Canadian soldiers who are able to buy more, whether of intoxicating liquors or other things, must be serious. I do not criticise the improvements which the Government are making under pressure from the House and other sources, for they are moving in the right direction. What I criticise is the lack of any Government policy on wages, whether Army or any other wages. There is the chaotic effect of civil servants and local government servants going into the Army. The Government pay civil servants a subvention by making up their Army pay to the Civil Service pay. They also impress on local government authorities the desirability of local authorities making up to the civilian rate of pay the pay of men going into the Army. That class of person is a considerable number, and it is gradually extending. The more men are called up from the Civil Service and local authorities the more we have in the Services a privileged class of soldier. I suggest that it is bad for the morale of the troops, of their dependants and of the whole country that there should be these two types of soldiers serving side by side. One is the soldier who draws a subsidy from the taxpayers or the local ratepayers by having his pay made up to his civilian


rate of pay, and the other is the man who is called up from industry, and is drawing only the pay given him in the Army, Navy or Air Force.
It is not right that we should have those two classes of soldier. It stands to reason that the former class are better able to support their dependants than are the latter class. If we divide this country into two classes like that, we are laying up for ourselves a considerable store of trouble. This is not a matter entirely within the province of the Minister, although, generally, the War Office speaks for the three Services in this matter. This is really a matter of Government policy. The Government must apply their minds to it at a very early date and deal with it, not from the narrow aspect taken to-day, of giving 1s. here or 6d. there. That will not be a solution. Hon. Members are impressed with the fact that that is the method which is not winning us the war. It is the piecemeal method of tackling all our problems, whether of production, strategy or payment allowances, on one front only. It cannot be done. The whole of the battlefield must be surveyed and a policy must be laid down which can be applied in every part of that battlefield. Perhaps the War Office can take more prominent action in this matter. It must know the effect which is being produced on the troops. The War Office has reports from its welfare officers, and other people, of the considerable discontent that is rife in the Army. It is futile for the hon. and gallant Member for Smethwick to say that the discontent is not there. He is a major, and possibly he does not see the matter from the same angle as the privates serving under his command. His pay and allowances are quite different. When he wants certain things he knows he can get them in the officers' mess. What is left for the private to do when black-out time comes? He has nothing else to do—and sheer boredom drives him into it—but to go into the public house or the canteen.
I do not want to speak too much from personal experience, but I can assure the House that I have a very intimate knowledge of this matter. I have a young boy in the Army at the present moment who is drawing 17s. 6d. a week. It is certainly more than he got from me as pocket-money when he was at home. I know from him that there is only one outlet

for him in the evenings and I know all that it costs him. When I was speaking to him the other day I asked him whether there were no regimental dances, and whether he ever went to them. He said, "No, they are not much." I asked, "Surely the entrance cannot be excessive." I found it was only a matter of 6d. but it was not the entrance to the dances which mattered but what one spent when there. I hope I am not putting the case of the unmarried soldier too prominently before the House, but it is clear that even for that class, without dependants, it is very difficult to manage upon 17s. 6d. a week. Perhaps the pay might amount to a guinea, when they go on to the proficiency pay.
I wish to say no more than I have said on the matter. The whole subject should be debated on the wider principle, and the whole of our wages policy should be very seriously considered by the Government. Only recently some of us were discussing with the Secretary of State how war gratuities would be expended at the end of the war. The Secretary of State told us, as indeed the Prime Minister said to-day, that there is no war gratuity up to the moment. That was a matter to be settled by the Government of the day. Those who served in the last war know that we had a war gratuity. Although the Services may be glad of this deferred pay of 6d. a day they want to know what is to be their future and the future of their families, of they survive this war. Up to the moment, the Government have given no adequate answer to that question.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): This Debate has ranged a good deal wider than I was given to understand when I was told what particular subject was to be raised. The subject of which I was given notice was the comparative rates of pay of American and Dominion troops and our troops here in the United Kingdom. Since then we have gone on to cover the whole question of the adequacy and justice of Army rates from the point of view of other services and industrial wages in this country, and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) also raised the need of a comprehensive wages policy on the part of the Government. He and other Members who have spoken will understand that I am not in a position to answer all the points which have been raised. Even if I


were the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the whole Cabinet rolled into one I should need a good deal of instruction before I entered without notice into all the points which have been raised in this Debate.
I should, however, like to say before I come to the special point on which I was given notice, that anything which affects the adequacy or justice of the rates of pay of the Army and the armed services generally is one of the most profound importance which I am sure the whole House approaches with a sense of how important it is. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw just now said that the morale of the Army was being affected by the rates of pay. I repudiate that absolutely. There is nothing wrong with the morale of the Army at the present time, and it is really mischievous to suggest that its morale may suffer in consequence of questions of pay and allowances. All these questions raised now, the gratuity to be paid after the war, and conditions of life at the end of the war, depend on the morale of the Army. It is what that Army does which will govern the possibilities at the end of the war, and anything which suggests that the morale of the Army is affected in any way at the present time, is, I think, treason to the cause in which we are serving. There is nothing which cannot be achieved by the Services with the morale of ours.

Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me an opportunity to explain that remark of mine. Has he never heard of the expression "browning-off," and does he mean to suggest that at the present time there is not a considerable amount of that in the Army on the questions which have been raised?

Sir E. Grigg: It is a great tradition of the Army to grouse and carry on. There are always matters on which soldiers are not satisfied. They would not be soldiers if they were. What I resent, I repeat, is any suggestion that the fighting quality of the Army, and that is what is meant by morale—

Mr. Bellenger: I did not mean that.

Sir E. Grigg: —and what the enemy will take to be meant, is affected by such matters as allowances and rates of pay. We do get reports of the morale of the Army and find them absolutely satisfactory.

While there are many things which the Service Ministers in particular would like to do for the Services we are not going to suggest for one moment that the quality of these Forces and their devotion to the cause, and their discipline, will be affected by what was said or done in this House on questions of pay. Our Army in this war, as in previous wars, is, I am convinced, going to do its duty splendidly whatever may be the rates of pay by comparison with those of civilians during the war. I would like to make one other observation. It is the practice of some Members of this House to refer to Ministers as Shylocks on questions of this kind. The hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) said that they had "a bank-balance mind." If we were dealing with our own money the accusation might be deserved, but we are dealing with the money of the country that is controlled by this House, Our hesitations do not arise from any tendency to be Shylocks, but from a grave consideration of what would be the effect on the future of the country of taking the steps so light-heartedly advocated by Members who have no responsibility in this matter.
With those two observations, I hope that hon. Members who have raised wider points will allow me to refer them to the Debate on the statement made by the Prime Minister which will take place next week. It will then be possible to cover the whole subject. I can only say that, so far as the Army is concerned, we listen sympathetically to every representation that is made, and we are most anxious, so far as conditions allow, to do what is best for the comfort and reward of our troops. But I would remind the House, and particularly the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, that what we can do for the Army, and for everybody else, depends on the way we fight this war, and that nothing likely to raise dissatisfaction in the Army without due cause should be said in this House or elsewhere. For that reason I do not very much welcome the discussion of Dominion and American rates raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone this afternoon. I do not believe that he has rendered a public service by raising it, but, since he has raised it, I must give the answer which any Government must give when comparisons are drawn between the conditions of their troops and those of other countries.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I gave notice as far back as last Tuesday that I would raise this matter. It is not an idea which I got only to-day.

Sir E. Grigg: The hon. and gallant Member is apparently trying to show that the action he took was deliberate. I regret it all the more because it was deliberate. It was very undesirable, and the fact that it was deliberate makes it no less undesirable.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Why undesirable?

Sir E. Grigg: The question is whether this Parliament should be guided in regard to rates of pay given to its Services by the provision which is made by other legislatures elsewhere. Are we to be guided by what other Parliaments do? That is a question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised. To that I must give the only answer which any Government can give, not only in this country but in any other country—a round and absolute negative. Rates of pay must be governed by the conditions of the country in which they are paid, and the conditions in other countries cannot be brought into account in any way whatever if justice is to be done. Obviously, the conditions and resources of the country to which the service belongs must govern everything that is done for that service. The payment of the service depends on many conditions. It depends on the purchasing power of the money, which varies greatly between one country and another, upon the standards of living, which vary between one country and another, on the normal pay of civilian workers, and on the limits of the national revenue. Let me take the standard of living. My hon. and gallant Friend was pleased to quote the conditions of the American troops and the troops of the Dominions. But in the British Army there are troops of many races. We have to keep in view all the standards of living of different parts of the British Empire, and to work with a very great number of different rates of pay. Does he tell me that all these rates of pay are to be equalised throughout the Empire? If he does not say that, how is he to justify it being done for some parts and not for the rest? The only way in which justice can be done is payment by relation to the conditions and resources of the country to which the particular soldiers

belong. I do not believe that there can be any quarrel about this.
Let me come to the question of the other conditions. It is right, and I would not quarrel for a moment with the argument, that the rate of pay for our Forces should be related as far as possible to the rates of pay and of wages of every other man and woman in this country. That is a legitimate consideration and one which Parliaments and Governments must weigh all the time. But if you are to equalise rates between one country and another, you cannot limit it only to pay in the Services. You must deal with the pay of Civil Defence services and also with industrial wages. If you equalise the position with regard to the Services, are you going to equalise it in respect of everything else? If so, you will find yourself inexorably faced by the final consideration and that is, the limits of the National Revenue. Some countries are much more wealthy than others. We are now by no means the wealthiest country in the world. Any responsible man who has the stewardship of our finances at the present time must consider the limits of our national resources. The suggestions which have been made involve many hundred millions of pounds a year.
Nor is this a war-time question only. Once these rates are raised to a certain point they must affect the rates in time of peace. Everybody will recognise that that must be the case. If you unduly raise, under pressure in war, the whole of the Service rates of these wages, it will affect your economic structure in time of peace. It will affect the amount which you can afford for the social services by comparison with defence, and for defence by comparison with other necessary things. All these points must be considered, and they in turn will affect your costs of production and your power of competition in world markets when the time comes to renew trade after the war. I think it will be admitted on these grounds that it is impossible to fix rates of pay for the Services in any country except in relation to the conditions prevailing in that country. If you go beyond that and say that our conditions must be equalised with those of other countries, then the same principle must be applied to those countries which are not as well off as we are. You cannot limit the scope of a general principle of that kind; and the


effect would inevitably be to undermine those very things for which our soldiers are fighting at the present time, the security and the stability of the Empire in the years to come. Therefore, I say on behalf the Government, that I reject and repudiate all comparisons of this kind and do not propose to take any of the detailed points which have been raised.
There are indeed other compelling reasons for refusing to take up these comparisons in detail. Real comparisons, as our officers have told us who have gone into this—and we have given many hours to it—are well-night impossible, since the value of various forms of payment varies greatly according to the conditions in which they are made. It would also be quite impossible to discuss these comparisons in detail without trenching on matters which are not the business of this Parliament, but the business of other Parliaments. Are you to discuss whether such and such a rate of pay is reasonable? That must raise questions under the jurisdiction of other Parliaments—

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting it is unreasonable?

Sir E. Grigg: I do not see why I should say that everything done by other Parliaments is reasonable. No man in his senses would ever make such an assumption. But it is not for this Parliament to discuss whether other Parliaments are reasonable, and that would really became inevitable if we launched on the detailed comparisons proposed. Discussions of that kind would be bound to spread dissatisfaction, not only here but in the Empire, and to spread it without due cause. I am indeed sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised this question at all. He will do no service to the country by raising it, nor to the Army, nor to the cause for which we are fighting. On behalf of the Government I must tell him flatly that we cannot possibly discuss the comparisons which he has wished to raise.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: The hon. Gentleman has successfully drawn a red herring across the whole of this important question. I would like to ask him this: Is he himself satisfied with the minimum amount that a British private gets to-day?

Sir E. Grigg: I said perfectly clearly that I would not discuss the general question which will be raised in Parliament next week. The hon. and gallant Gentleman

asked me to come here to-day in order to hear him raise comparisons between our rates of pay and Dominion and American rates of pay. I have answered him and that is all I am prepared to deal with to-day.

Mr. Crowder: Before the date of the White Paper will my hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and the Treasury as to the condition of the married subaltern with two or three schoolchildren? After the concessions which the Government has given us he seems, from my experience in dealing with these matters, to have been so far left out of it. This question is bound to be raised and I would ask him to consult his right hon. Friend so that the Government may, perhaps, have some reassuring answer to give us when the Debate takes place.

Sir E. Grigg: I cannot pledge my right hon. and gallant Friend to give an answer on that point but I will call his attention to it.

Mr. Mathers: Would the hon. Gentleman amplify the eloquent gestures he made when the hon. and gallant Member for Smethwick (Major Wise) stated what he believed to be the fundamentals of the question which has been discussed in to-day's Debate? The Under-Secretary seemed to approve the point, which was that all the soldier was concerned about was the position of his wife and family now and their position in the event of his becoming a casualty. The hon. Gentleman seemed hardly to approve of that suggestion. I think that here is a point where a real and justifiable comparison can be made, and must be made. It is the difference between the allowances to a serving soldier's wife and family while he is a serving soldier and the very much reduced position to which these dependants are brought when, unfortunately, that soldier becomes a casualty and they become subject to pensions conditions and not the conditions of the allowances with which we are dealing more particularly at the moment. I think I am in Order in raising this point, although it is slightly apart from the general tenour of the Debate, but it seemed to claim the hon. and gallant Gentleman's approval, and I wonder whether he would say a word on that particular aspect.

Sir E. Grigg: Like every Service Minister, I am anxious that our serving men should have a sense of absolute security in regard to their families, whether they survive or whether they fall. That is the desire of every Service Minister. I cannot say how far the Government are prepared to go in that direction. The House knows that the Government have been going very carefully into these problems lately, and that a White Paper has been published. There is to be a full Debate and I must leave a full reply, on behalf of the Government, to the Ministers who speak in that Debate.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: That is one point about which I am not clear. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that in raising this matter to-day I had rendered a disservice. Does he mean that I have rendered a disservice to the private in the Army or to the Government?

Sir E. Grigg: I said that the hon. and gallant Member had rendered a disservice to the country, the Army, and the cause, because the comparison he has made is one that cannot be effectively applied to rates of pay, and one that is bound to cause dissatisfaction. I do not want to repeat what I said on that subject, but I feel it very deeply. Everybody knows how delicate these questions are, which affect not only Dominion troops and British troops, but the troops of many races throughout the Empire.

Mr. Silverman: Surely, it is a very strange doctrine that if there are grievances in the Armed Forces, or people think there are such grievances, they are rendering a disservice to the Armed Forces, the country and the cause by raising those grievances in the House. Is that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said?

Sir E. Grigg: I think the hon. Member was not in the House when the discussion took place. The point I made was that the comparison between the rates paid in one country and the rates paid in another is not a sound guide of what any country should pay, and that it is a disservice to raise that particular comparison, since it may arouse feeling which a full knowledge of the facts would not justify.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view as to whether it is a sound guide or not, and other people are entitled to their views, but to say that a Member who makes a comparison, which hundreds of thousands of people outside are making, is rendering a disservice, is surely itself to render a disservice to every man engaged in the Army.

Sir E. Grigg: I retain my opinion, and of course, the hon. Member is entitled to retain his.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.